ATV Feasibility Study Report

Transcription

ATV Feasibility Study Report
THE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING AN
ATV TRAIL RIDING FACILITY
IN
THE LOWER WYOMING VALLEY
Submitted to:
Earth Conservancy
101 South Main Street
Ashley, PA 18706
April 1, 2005
All-Terrain Vehicle Feasibility Study
Earth Conservancy
Executive Summary
All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) riding is an increasingly popular sport. Sales and registrations of
the machines continue to climb in Pennsylvania. However, the popularity of the sport has
outpaced the development of appropriate facilities for legal use of ATVs, resulting in illegal
riding where ATV users are not permitted to ride. Illegal riding has extended to abandoned
coal mining lands owned by Earth Conservancy, Inc. in the Lower Wyoming Valley.
Because Earth Conservancy recognized the need for riders to have legal riding areas and for
property owners to keep private property private, it requested grant funding from the
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and Luzerne County to conduct
a feasibility study. The study was designed to explore potential options and alternatives for
ATV riding in the Lower Wyoming Valley. Once funding was secured, a steering committee
was formed representing a cross-section of the community and those impacted by ATV
riding. The steering committee was intended to present a forum for discussion among those
stakeholders involved in the study process. The steering committee is comprised of
representatives from state and local governments, public utilities, ATV clubs and special
interest groups, and an ATV dealer.
The issues identified by the steering committee as matters of concern are: the increase of
illegal ATV riding on Earth Conservancy land, State Game lands, on other private property,
near residential areas and on public streets; the desire of the Luzerne County ATV
community to find legal riding venues; possible ATV facility ownership and operational
alternatives in Luzerne County and; possible property areas for development as an ATV
facility in Luzerne County.
The issues identified as criteria for determining feasibility in this study are: need, defined by
a comparison between the numbers of ATVs and the places to ride them; community support;
financial sustainability, including comparison of expenses and revenues; regional economic
impact; potential locations, including environmental issues, existing and planned land uses,
soils, local roadway access, and potential for trailhead facilities such as parking; ownership
alternatives; operational alternatives; legal issues and; liability issues. In addition to these
criteria, we have included a section in the study exploring enforcement issues. This
information includes ecological issues such as noise, vandalism, trespassing, and riding outof-bounds.
Several ATV facility ownership alternatives were explored, including Earth Conservancy
ownership, DCNR ownership, Luzerne County ownership, private individual or group
ownership, and non-profit organization ownership. Earth Conservancy ownership is not an
option, as it does not fit within the scope of the organization’s mission. DCNR ownership is
not likely, leaving County, private, or non-profit organization ownership as viable facility
ownership possibilities.
Several areas within Luzerne County were explored for possible ATV facility placement. An
area north of the Susquehanna River in Plymouth Township, extending from Plymouth to
Moon Lake was determined to have too many obstacles to ATV facility placement due to
i
Earth Conservancy
smaller, disjointed parcels of available land, poor opportunities for connection between
parcels, and an absence of local government support. An area south of the Susquehanna
River in Newport Township, extending from Nanticoke to Glen Lyon was determined to be a
good location for the placement of an ATV facility because of larger, more open tracts of
land, terrain desired by ATV riders, and local government interest.
Several conclusions were reached, and the following observations and recommendations are
offered:
•
The establishment of an ATV Trail facility would reduce illegal ATV
use, and contribute to the local economy.
•
The Steering Committee preference for an ATV Trail facility would be
a system of trails linking “challenge” areas that test the capabilities of
riders and their machines.
•
The recommended ownership alternative is the purchase and
development of a land resource into an ATV Trail facility by a
government entity or agency that allows for a high degree of
participation in the planning, development and operation of the system
by a local ATV club or consortium of clubs.
•
A second recommended ownership alternative is the purchase and
development of a land resource by a government entity or agency,
which would then lease the land to a club or consortium of clubs for
the development, operation and maintenance of an ATV Trail facility.
•
The best model of what is possible in terms of ownership, club
responsibility and commitment, the generation of capital, and good
will, is the Tower City Trail Riders, Inc.
•
The feasibility study suggests that the establishment and sustainability
of an ATV trail riding facility is indeed feasible, given the need,
available resources, proximity of the Lower Wyoming Valley to an
extended ATV enthusiast population, and most importantly the
commitment of the leaders of the ATV community. The most
significant impediment to the establishment of a facility is the issue of
ownership; however that issue is not viewed as insurmountable given
the local government openness to the concept of a regional ATV
facility.
Conclusion
The information presented in this report is meant to provide a framework for action by those
organizations, agencies or groups choosing to pursue the establishment of ATV trails or
parks in the Lower Wyoming Valley.
ii
Earth Conservancy
Earth Conservancy would like to thank the steering committee members who generously
donated their time and talents to this project.
Credits
This ATV Feasibility Study was developed with assistance from:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Earth Conservancy
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Valley ATV Club
Pocono Mountain ATV Club
Black Diamond ATV Club
Back Mountain Enduro Riders
Pertinent information was also contributed by:
•
•
Tower City Trail Riders, Inc.
Paragon Adventure Park
A Steering Committee was convened on November 18, 2003 at the offices of the Earth
Conservancy in Ashley, Pennsylvania. This committee of stakeholders was tasked with
driving the ATV Feasibility Study commissioned by the Earth Conservancy by discussing
important issues associated with determining the feasibility of developing an ATV Trail
Funding for the ATV Feasibility Study was provided by the Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, Luzerne County, and Earth Conservancy.
iii
Earth Conservancy
Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………............ 1
Documentation of Need ……………………………………………………………….
Quantitative Data ……………………………………………………………...
ATV Sales ……………………………………………………………..
ATV Registrations …………………………………………………….
Legal Riding Areas ……………………………………………………
Qualitative Data ……………………………………………………………….
Summary ………………………………………………………………………
3
3
3
3
4
4
6
Steering Committee …………………………………………………………………... 8
Summary ……………………………………………………………………… 9
Study Criteria …………………………………………………………………………. 10
Public Response to the Work of the Steering Committee ……………………………. 12
Summary ……………………………………………………………………… 13
Financial Feasibility and Sustainability ……………………………………………….
Expenses ………………………………………………………………………
Securing Land …………………………………………………………
Planning and Design …………………………………………………..
Permitting ……………………………………………………………..
Construction Costs …………………………………………………….
Facility Operations …………………………………………………….
Maintenance …………………………………………………………...
Estimated Expenses – 5-Year Build …………………………………..
Revenues ………………………………………………………………………
Membership and Usage Fees ………………………………………….
Grants ………………………………………………………………….
Events …………………………………………………………………
Training Programs …………………………………………………….
Storage Rentals ………………………………………………………..
Volunteers ……………………………………………………………..
Estimated Revenues …………………………………………………...
Regional Economic Impact ……………………………………………………
Service Area …………………………………………………………...
Driving Range …………………………………………………………
Activity Participation Rate Method …………………………………...
Comparative Demand Method ………………………………………...
Economic Impacts …………………………………………………….
Summary ………………………………………………………………………
iv
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
22
22
23
25
26
26
28
Earth Conservancy
Conceptual Locations …………………………………………………………………
Criteria for Consideration …………………………………………………….
Types of ATVs ………………………………………………………………..
Linear Trails …………………………………………………………………...
“Challenge” or “Play” Areas / Tracks ………………………………………...
Environmental Issues ………………………………………………………….
Existing / Planned Land Use …………………………………………………..
North of the Susquehanna River ………………………………………
South of the Susquehanna River ………………………………………
Other Areas ……………………………………………………………
Summary ………………………………………………………………………
29
29
30
30
31
32
34
34
35
36
37
Ownership / Operational Alternatives ………………………………………………...
Earth Conservancy …………………………………………………………….
DCNR – Forestry ……………………………………………………………...
Private Ownership …………………………………………………………….
Non-Profit 501c.3 Corporation Ownership …………………………………...
Luzerne County Ownership …………………………………………………...
Summary ………………………………………………………………………
39
39
39
40
40
41
42
Legal / Liability Issues ………………………………………………………………... 43
Insurance ……………………………………………………………………… 44
Summary ……………………………………………………………………… 44
Enforcement Issues ……………………………………………………………………
Trespassing ……………………………………………………………………
Off-Trail Riding ……………………………………………………………….
Out of Bounds Riding …………………………………………………………
Noise …………………………………………………………………………..
Vandalism ……………………………………………………………………..
Summary ………………………………………………………………………
46
46
47
47
47
48
48
Case Studies …………………………………………………………………………... 50
Summary ……………………………………………………………………… 51
Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 53
References …………………………………………………………………………….. 58
v
Earth Conservancy
Appendices
Appendix A
Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
Appendix B
Steering Committee PowerPoint® Presentations
Appendix C
ATV Registrations – Pennsylvania by County
Appendix D
Existing ATV Trails – Pennsylvania
Appendix E
Existing ATV Trails – Other States
Appendix F
Liability Management Practices in Pennsylvania
Appendix G
Newspaper Articles
Appendix H
Pertinent Correspondence
Appendix I
Maps
vi
Earth Conservancy
Introduction
All-Terrain-Vehicles (ATVs) have become a consumer phenomenon across the United
States. ATVs appeal to a broad range of users from farmers needing a small utility vehicle,
to sportsmen needing an efficient means of packing gear, and from families that enjoy
spending time outdoors, to motorcycle trail riders who enjoy the unique challenges of ATV
handling.
This broad appeal has driven ATV sales to ever-increasing numbers over the past decade.
The popularity of the sport has allowed consumers to drive changes in the market, which now
offers machines manufactured for various uses including utility, sport, racing, and even
smaller sized models for children.
The appeal of ATV riding is not limited to people in rural environs. People living in
suburban and even urban areas are drawn to the promise of good times riding ATVs, despite
legal use limitations that relegate ATVs to off-highway use only. This limitation in legal use
necessitates transporting ATVs from the homes of most owners to legal riding areas.
However, there are insufficient legal riding areas for the numbers of ATVs, creating,
perhaps, the greatest challenge to the sport.
The purpose of this feasibility study is to offer a step in the process of addressing this
challenge to the sport in the Lower Wyoming Valley of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. This
region’s heritage is rich in coal mining, having supplied this source of energy through the
development of the industrial revolution in the US. As the US economy has shifted from
manufacturing to service and information industries, the need for coal as an energy source
has waned, resulting in abandoned mines and mining areas throughout the region, including
the Lower Wyoming Valley.
The expanse of undeveloped
land in the Lower Wyoming
Valley, consisting of abandoned
coal mining operations and the
surrounding forests, draws ATV
users because such terrain offers
precisely the characteristics
desired by them: challenging
terrain and beautiful forestland.
The forested areas of the Valley,
particularly near the
Susquehanna River, offer trail
riding and vistas unmatched in
the region. Unfortunately, much
of this land is privately owned,
and riding on privately owned
land without permission is illegal.
1
Earth Conservancy
Earth Conservancy (EC) owns
16,300 acres in Luzerne
County, which makes it a
significant landowner in the
Lower Wyoming Valley
region. The mission of EC is
to reclaim and return the lands
under its management to the
region. To that end it will
collaborate with local
communities, government
agencies, educational
institutions, and the private
sector to spearhead the
creation and implementation
of plans that restore the land’s
economic, recreational,
residential, and ecological value.
Much of the land is forested and remote, while a significant number of acres are minescarred. The combination of these features presents appropriate challenges to ATV riding,
appealing to ATV enthusiasts. Insurance regulations eliminate riding on the lands under EC
control and 10,000 acres of EC’s land has been placed under the management of the PA
Game Commission, which does not allow motorized vehicles on its properties. The
Pennsylvania Game Commission has also become concerned with illegal ATV use on lands
under their control. ATV use on State Game Lands, while not permitted, does occur, raising
concern for Game Commission enforcement officers, whose ranks and budget are insufficient
to fully enforce the law.
While remote and difficult to access, some of this land is not inaccessible by others with
dishonorable intent. Waste dumping, motor vehicle abandonment, vandalism, and various
forms of assault are all crimes committed on remote lands. While ATV riding on property
without permission is illegal, ATV enthusiasts, because they are more visible, also bear the
burden for illegal activities that they might not own, adding suspicion and mistrust to the
complexity of finding a solution to the problem of illegal ATV riding.
Is finding a solution amenable to both landowners and ATV users feasible? This study seeks
to address that important question by exploring whether feasible options for ATV riding in
the Lower Wyoming Valley exist, and to report those findings.
2
Earth Conservancy
Documentation of Need
In order to explore and document the issue of the sufficiency of riding areas for ATV
enthusiasts in the Lower Wyoming Valley, we will examine both quantitative and qualitative
data sources. The quantitative data used will include industry sales figures, Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) registration figures, and data about existing
trails from Internet websites. The qualitative data explored includes newspaper articles
published about ATV use in Luzerne County. A synopsis of each article is presented to offer
the reader an understanding of breadth of the issue, as well as the depth of concerns reported
in the region.
Quantitative Data
We begin by presenting data demonstrating the large, and growing, numbers of ATVs in use,
and enumerating areas designated for legal riding. The data will include ATV sales and
registrations in Pennsylvania and in Luzerne County, followed by a listing of the significant
legal riding areas in Pennsylvania and their proximity to the Lower Wyoming Valley.
ATV Sales
Sales statistics available for the period January through June of 2002 published by the Dealer
News, an industry periodical, indicate that ATV sales in Pennsylvania numbered 34,870 units
for the six-month period. This sales figure places Pennsylvania fourth in the US in terms of
ATV sales, following California, New York and Texas, in that order (as published by PA
Atving.com, accessed 7/12/2004). Incidentally, national ATV sales for the same period are
791,743 units, as reported by the Dealer News (as published by PA Atving.com, accessed
7/12/2004).
Sales of all similar categories of off-highway machines, such as off-road motorcycles, as well
as ATVs, are increasing. According to the Dealer News, in an article publishing the latest
sales figures available, sales at the mid-point of 2002 were, at that time, already 24.84%
ahead of the total sales for year 2001 (as published by PA Atving.com, accessed 7/12/2004).
ATV Registrations
All ATVs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are required to be registered with the
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). ATVs that are intended for use
only on their owner’s property are registered as ‘Limited,’ while all other registered ATVs
are registered as ‘Active.’ As of March 1, 2004, the DCNR listed 141,927 registered ATVs
(Active Vehicles) in the Commonwealth of PA (DCNR Internet Site, accessed 3/1/2004).
This number does not include the vehicles registered as Limited (confined to the property of
the owner) or unregistered vehicles. While the number of unregistered ATVs appears to be
significant, there is no reliable method to quantify these vehicles.
As of March 1, 2004, the DCNR listed 4,875 registered ATVs (Active Vehicles) in Luzerne
County (DCNR Internet Site, accessed 3/1/2004). This number does not include the vehicles
3
Earth Conservancy
registered as Limited (confined to the property of the owner) or unregistered vehicles.
Again, while the number of unregistered ATVs appears to be significant, there is no reliable
method to quantify these vehicles.
Legal Riding Areas
DCNR lists six summer trails and five summer / winter trails on its website. With six
summer trails and five summer/winter trails available on state forest property, ATV
enthusiasts have available 229.2 miles of trail in the summer and 131.1 miles in the winter
for their enjoyment (DCNR Internet Site, accessed 1/26/2004). None of these trails are
located in the Lower Wyoming Valley.
The Federal Forestry Service makes four trails available for ATV riding in the Allegheny
National Forest, for a total of 106 miles (http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/). The
Allegheny National Forest is located in northwest Pennsylvania, so none of these trails are
either in, or near, Luzerne County.
Internet research revealed four private ATV trails available in northeast Pennsylvania, with
one located in Luzerne County. The mileage of some of these trails cannot be ascertained, as
some of the trail managers do not advertise their mileage totals. The private trail system
located in Luzerne County is Paragon Adventure Park (Paragon), with 130 miles of trails
available. Paragon is operated by a private corporation, requiring a small membership fee
and daily usage fees (http://www.paragonap.com/).
Tower City Trail Riders, Inc. (TCTRI) manages a facility in adjacent Schuylkill County, with
trails located on 6,000 acres (http://www.towercitytrailriders.org). TRAXX at Jack Frost,
Big Boulder in Monroe County and Snow Shoe Rails to Trails in Centre County are the
remaining known trail facilities near the Lower Wyoming Valley (http://www.ridepa.net).
Other facilities are in operation throughout Pennsylvania, but these facilities are not near
enough to the Lower Wyoming Valley to fall into the purview of this study.
Luzerne County, in partnership with Lackawanna County, has developed an Open Space,
Greenways and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan, which includes areas designated for ATV
use. While this plan is comprehensive, addressing a variety of recreational needs, some of
the activities are not expected to be initiated for 15 to 20 years (Open Space, Greenways and
Outdoor Recreation Master Plan, 2004).
Qualitative Data
Newspaper articles were reviewed and are presented here to define the issue of ATV use as it
is understood by the citizens of Luzerne County. The articles reviewed are from mainly local
newspapers in Luzerne County, and cover the larger issue from the need for more designated
riding areas to the feelings of citizens affected by illegal ATV use on public roadways and
private property. Each of the following paragraphs is a short review of articles found in
newspapers published in the Lower Wyoming Valley. Each review contains the name of the
author, the name of the article, the newspaper, date of publication, and the theme of the
4
Earth Conservancy
article. These reviews are not offered as facts in support of, or in opposition to, any
particular viewpoint, or agency or entity. These reviews are offered only to give a sense of
the range of issues associated with ATV riding in the Lower Wyoming Valley, and some of
the perspectives found in the public realm.
An article by Venesky, entitled “Unwanted ATV Riders,” published in The Citizens’ Voice
on March 28, 2004, illustrates the frustration felt by ATV owners caused by a system that
requires the payment of registration fees, but returns little in terms of available trails.
Venesky writes that the DCNR is making efforts to provide trails for ATV riding, however
such efforts must include consideration for environmentally sensitive areas and the needs of
other groups using the forest. Further complicating DCNR’s effort is the cost of trail
maintenance. DCNR indicates that the costs of enforcement and maintenance for the trails
they provide use up most of the registration fees paid by ATV owners, limiting funding for
establishing new trails. Venesky writes, “He (referring to Terry Brady, deputy press
secretary for the DCNR) said the $20 registration fee charged to ATV owners doesn’t go that
far because it’s used for trail maintenance and law enforcement. In the end, Brady said there
is very little, if any, of the registration money left to purchase land or build more trails.” As a
result, DCNR has recognized the importance of trail establishment by private groups, and in
March, 2004, awarded $2.2 million in five grants for the development and improvement of
riding opportunities for ATV users (Venesky, 2004).
The frustration felt by ATV owners is manifested by some ATV owners choosing to ridge
illegally. Roth, in an article entitled “Road to Trouble,” published in The Times Leader on
November 16, 2003, writes that some ATVs are used in mixed-use areas, placing them on the
same trails with runners, hikers, rollerbladers, and others. ATVs are also used on public
streets, alleys and on private property without permission. Roth writes that when land
owners do give ATV riders permission to use their lands, the ATV users must often ride
illegally to access the permitted property. Local police agencies consider ATV use a
problem due to the amount of illegal riding in restricted areas, and the number of complaints
about illegal ATV riding strains local police agencies (Roth, 2003).
In the same edition of The Times Leader (November 16, 2003), Smith published an article
entitled “Game Lands Magnet for Illegal Riders,” about illegal ATV use on State Game
Lands. Smith reports that the Pennsylvania State Game Commission oversees 1.4 million
acres of game lands in the Commonwealth’s 67 counties. The Game Commission has 25
Conservation Officers in the 13-county Northeast Region, overseeing 347,634 acres of game
lands. Each Conservation Officer patrols approximately 400 square miles. With so few
Conservation Officers, the Game Commission is unable to effectively prevent ATV use on
Game Lands. The Game Commission does target areas of high illegal use, and conducts
intensive patrol operations. They issued approximately 700 citations across the
Commonwealth during year 2003, each citation carrying a fine of $100. Conservation
Officers believe most violators reside near the Game Lands. These ATV users have easy
access without traveling on public roads to access the Game Lands (Smith, 2003).
Roth, in an earlier article, published on October 16, 2003, in The Times Leader, entitled
“Riding the rails is the fast track to danger,” revealed that ATV users riding near, or on,
5
Earth Conservancy
railroad tracks is an increasing hazard. Roth reports that railroad tracks are dangerous places.
Train speeds can be deceptive and helmeted riders can miss hearing oncoming trains, posing
a hazard to the riders. ATV use along tracks can displace track ballast, possibly leading to
the deformation of rails, and the possible derailing of trains. ATV riders have been known to
nearly strike switching crews, and to kick up ballast with their tires near railroad crews. A
Reading and Northern Railroad police lieutenant recently issued 13 citations on a single
Sunday (Roth, 2003).
In contrast to these articles reporting illegal ATV activity, Kopec, in an article published in
The Times Leader on November 16, 2003, entitled “Many ATV Riders Find Fun in Safety,”
documents the attitudes of many ATV riders who use their machines responsibly. Kopec
reports that many ATV users who insist on responsible riding join clubs of like-minded riders
committed to lawful riding. These are ATV users who operate their machines
conservatively, ride in designated areas, and pack out their trash. These are the riders who
enjoy the outdoors, and find ATVs useful for extending their excursions into the forest. Club
members report that lawful ATV riding is expensive: machines must be transported to
approved or private ATV use areas; user fees are usually charged at facilities allowing ATV
use; and there are no public facilities in Luzerne County, necessitating travel for many ATV
users. ATV users with little free time lament the lack of public facilities in Luzerne County.
They believe an ATV trail facility in Luzerne County would not only serve Luzerne County,
but would draw ATV enthusiasts from across the northeast, bringing with them tourism
dollars (Kopec, 2003).
An article by Marcy, also published in The Times Leader on November 16, 2003, entitled
“Former Mine Lands Are Seen as Solution to Make All Happy,” suggests that the success of
the Hatfield-McCoy Regional Recreation Area in West Virginia using abandoned mining
areas could serve as a model for Luzerne County. The Hatfield-McCoy facility provides
recreational use, contributes to economic development, makes beneficial use of land with few
other uses, and satisfies the concerns of ATV enthusiasts and environmentalists. Marcy
suggests that the tens of thousands of acres of abandoned mining land in Luzerne County,
much of it under the control of Earth Conservancy, could perhaps provide similar benefits as
the Hatfield-McCoy facility (Marcy, 2003).
Documentation of Need Summary
The numbers of ATVs sold in the US and Pennsylvania have been increasing over the past
decade, and appear to be continuing to increase. Luzerne County has the fourth highest ATV
registration numbers in PA; however the available designated trails for ATV use are few,
geographically widespread, and isolated, in that the trails are not connected in a system
allowing ATV passage between them.
Newspaper articles from the region report that most ATV riders prefer to ride responsibly;
they hope for more riding opportunities, and are willing to transport their ATVs to designated
riding areas or private property where they have permission to ride. Some ATV riders resort
to illegal riding, using their machines on public roadways or on private property without
6
Earth Conservancy
permission. Those ATV riders that do resort to illegal riding have earned a reputation that
appears to color the reputation of the larger, responsible riding community.
Outspoken members of the ATV community believe that an increase in the available trails
designated for ATV use will effectively reduce the illegal ATV riding in the region. Further,
they believe the large tracts of abandoned coal mine lands extant in the Lower Wyoming
Valley could be useful for the development of ATV trails.
7
Earth Conservancy
Steering Committee
In an effort to better understand the viability of developing designated ATV trail facilities in
the Lower Wyoming Valley, EC, a non-profit 501 (c) (3) corporation, commissioned this
feasibility study. The study was funded by the DCNR, Luzerne County, and EC. A steering
committee was established to foster discussion among parties interested in the issue, and to
drive the study by raising questions important to a complete understanding of the needs of all
stakeholders.
The steering committee represented a cross-section of the Lower Wyoming Valley
community including government agencies, elected officials, landowners, ATV enthusiasts
and residents:
Commonwealth Agencies/Entities
•
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
•
Pennsylvania Game Commission
•
Local Representatives to PA House
Local Government
•
Luzerne County
•
Warrior Run Boro
•
Newport Township
Public Utilities
•
Pennsylvania Power and Light
•
UGI
ATV Clubs and Special Interest Groups
•
Black Diamond ATV Club
•
Valley ATV Club
•
Pocono Mountain ATV Club
•
Black Mountain ATV Club
•
PA Atving.com
ATV Dealer
•
Riders World
The steering committee also included representation from Earth Conservancy’s feasibility
study consultant, Pennoni Associates Inc.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Steering Committee were to: provide an open forum for
discussion about the feasibility of establishing ATV trails in the Lower Wyoming Valley;
identify issues pertinent to the development of ATV trails in the Lower Wyoming Valley;
and approve the completed feasibility study as having addressed the pertinent issues.
The issues identified for exploration by the steering committee were: the increase of illegal
ATV riding on Earth Conservancy land and State Game lands, as well as other private
property near residential areas and on public streets; the desire of the Lower Wyoming
Valley ATV community to find legal riding venues; ATV facility ownership and operational
alternatives in the region and; possible property locations for development of an ATV facility
in the Lower Wyoming Valley.
8
Earth Conservancy
Steering Committee Summary
A Steering Committee initiated by Earth Conservancy was convened to drive the discussion
associated with the development of this feasibility study. The Steering Committee is
comprised of a diverse membership including representation by state and local governments,
public utilities, ATV clubs and special interest groups, and an ATV dealer. This Committee
is responsible to drive the development of a feasibility study by raising questions pertinent to
the larger issue of ATV facility establishment in Luzerne the Lower Wyoming Valley.
9
Earth Conservancy
Study Criteria
As a way of simplifying the complexity of the larger issue of establishing an ATV facility in
the Lower Wyoming Valley along with its many side issues, and to organize the data
collected, criteria were established that when taken together would articulate whether the
establishment of an ATV facility in the Lower Wyoming Valley is feasible. These criteria
are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need, defined by a comparison between the numbers of ATVs and the
places to ride them;
Community Support;
Financial Sustainability, defined by a comparison between the
estimated expenses and the estimated revenues associated with
establishing and operating an ATV facility;
Estimated regional economic impact;
Conceptual locations, including consideration of environmental issues,
existing and planned land uses, soils, access, and potential for trailhead
facilities such as parking;
Ownership alternatives;
Operational alternatives;
Legal issues;
Liability issues.
These criteria represent an overview of the issues explored in this study, as well as a
framework upon which an argument for, or against, the feasibility of establishing an ATV
facility might be built. Further, these criteria are consistent with those articulated in the
Pennsylvania Trail Design Manual for Off-highway Recreational Vehicles produced for the
DCNR by the Larson Design Group, and Park Guidelines for Off-highway Vehicles by Fogg.
In addition to these criteria, we have included a section exploring enforcement issues. This
information includes ecological issues such as noise, vandalism, trespassing, and riding outof-bounds.
Need
From a purely quantitative perspective, this criterion examines the number of ATVs needing
a place for use and compares that to the trail miles available. However, need is also a
perception, so qualitative data that includes information in the public realm in the form of
newspaper reporting and Internet chatter must also be considered. Taken together,
quantitative and qualitative date can provide a sense of the real and the felt needs about the
establishment of an ATV facility of the affected population.
Community Support
This criterion is largely an exploration of community response to the work of the steering
committee. Of interest is not only the level of excitement of the community to the
discussions of ATV facility feasibility, but also if that excitement translates into action.
10
Earth Conservancy
Financial Sustainability
The sustainability of an ATV facility depends entirely upon its ability to consistently produce
income. This criterion compares the estimated costs of start-up, and operations and
maintenance over a five-year period with estimated income projections over the same time
period.
Estimated Regional Economic Impact
A significant ATV facility will draw most of its enthusiasts from within a three-hour driving
range. This criterion requires the exploration of the estimated ATV enthusiast population
from this potential service area and consider the amount of money these enthusiasts might
bring to the region in which the ATV facility is located.
Conceptual Locations
Several parcels of land in two townships encompassing hundreds of acres fell into the
purview of this study. This criterion required the consideration of the relationship of each
parcel with the local roadway system, surrounding land uses, environmental issues such as
wetland areas and steep terrain areas, and the plans and desires of the local governments.
This criterion will also explore locations with respect for proximity to developed area
because of the noise and dust associated with ATV use.
Ownership and Operational Alternatives
For an ATV facility to be sustainable, ownership and operation must be conducted by a party
or parties committed to the facility’s success over time. This criterion requires exploration of
various possible ownership options including present owners, local governments, private
citizens, and non-profit organizations.
Legal and Liability Issues
Legal advice falls to the expertise of legal counsel. This criterion requires the exploration of
possible legal considerations such as risk management. Insurance, and Pennsylvania’s
Recreational Use Statute, and how these figure into risk management are the focus within
this discussion. This criterion also considers the enforcement of facility rules intended to
reduce risk, and increase the likelihood of good relations between a facility and its neighbors.
11
Earth Conservancy
Public Response to the Work of the Steering Committee
The convening of the Steering Committee was an important event for ATV enthusiasts in
Luzerne County. The committee’s work created a ripple of response extending across the
ATV community. This response was not limited to excitement about the possibilities that
might come from the work of the steering committee, but also resulted in positive action by
some enthusiasts to seize upon any opportunities that might result. Following are
observations of public opinion about the steering committee, and observations of enthusiast
action concurrent with the tenure of the steering committee.
Public reaction in Luzerne County to the formation of the Steering Committee was generally
positive. Venesky, in an article entitled “Feasibility Study to Determine Viability of ATV
Facility,” published on August 11, 2003, in The Citizens’ Voice, reported that the need for
legal riding areas is made apparent by EC’s and others’ experiences with illegal ATV use in
the region. The article includes quotes by EC’s director of public affairs that the study is an
effort to understand the problem of illegal ATV use and how the establishment of trails might
be useful for remediation of the problem. The article included a cautionary note that the
study will not necessarily lead to the establishment of trails on EC property (Venesky, 2003).
PaATVing.com is an Internet chat forum for people interested in ATV riding. Greg Hamill,
president of the Pocono Mountain ATV Club and a member of the Steering Committee,
posted a narrative, positive in tone, of his initial experience with the Steering Committee.
Mr. Hamill’s comments described the enthusiasm of the Steering Committee’s first meeting,
and he made every effort to extend that enthusiasm to his readers on the Forum. Numerous
responses to Mr. Hamill’s comments were posted, most expressing excitement about the
formation of the Steering Committee and hope for the possibility of the establishment of
trails for ATV use.
During the tenure of the steering committee, public activity by members of the ATV
enthusiast community, as well as others outside the ATVing community has been observed.
PA Atving.com, the forum for ATV users to communicate using the Internet mentioned
above has continued to include discussion about EC’s feasibility study and its implications.
The comments posted by respondents from within the ATV community have shifted from
excitement about the possibility of an entity outside the ATV community providing land for
trail development to a realization that securing land for trail development will more likely
result from the mobilization of the ATV community’s resources. This is a significant shift in
perception, and signals the emerging empowerment of the ATV community in Luzerne
County.
The Black Diamond ATV Club, in an effort to provide a service to the area and to establish a
positive reputation for the ATVing community in the region, has made itself useful to local
law enforcement and emergency services for search and rescue operations in which ATVs
are particularly well suited for increasing mobility. This club has developed an emergency
services platform towable by an ATV for deep forest access, increasing the effectiveness of
search and rescue operations. In so doing, this organization has established good will
12
Earth Conservancy
between ATV enthusiasts and law enforcement, and raised awareness of the benefits of
ATVs and their enthusiasts to the larger community.
The activities of the Black Diamond ATV Club raise an interesting issue. Community
support is often understood as an issue of the non-enthusiast community making some
concession(s) in support of ATVing, but the activities of the Black Diamond ATV Club
suggest public involvement could just as well be about what ATVing is doing for the
community. The primary way ATVing can be involved in the local community is its fiscal
participation. ATV enthusiasts spend money to enjoy their sport. The question has
traditionally been; will they spend their money in the communities that support their
activities? However, this kind of fiscal participation is where the discussion of the ATVing
community’s contribution to the larger community typically ends. The activities of the Black
Diamond ATV Club have extended the discussion, and challenged ATV enthusiasts to
discover reasons for communities located in regions best situated for ATV activities to desire
their presence.
Outside the community of ATV enthusiasts, there is significant opposition to ATV use. The
breadth of this opposition can be discerned from articles in Luzerne County newspapers,
some of which have been previously cited in this study. Opposition to ATV use is generally
found in environmental conservation groups, which are concerned with environmental
damage done by off-road vehicles, in municipal governments concerned with illegal ATV
use on public streets and other public properties, among landowners whose properties are
abused by illegal ATV riding, and among individuals offended by the noise or dust raised by
nearby ATV use or the deviant behavior of some ATV riders. The opposition, as reported
publicly in newspaper articles, comments at public meetings, and in discussions with
concerned individuals, is generally a reaction to illegal ATV activities, rather than a
philosophical concern with the existence of ATVs. Following this evidence to a logical
conclusion suggests that if opposition to ATVs is generally based upon the illegal use of
ATVs, then removing ATVs to legal riding areas would reduce the general opposition to
them.
Specific concern with, or opposition to, ATV use in Luzerne County includes two cases of
local community opposition. The Borough of Sugar Notch passed an ordinance prohibiting
ATV use within the Borough except on ATV users’ own property. Jackson Township
considered an ordinance regulating ATV use, but tabled the issue. In both cases the issue
drew significant public interest, with strong feelings reported among those in opposition to
ATV use, as well as among ATV enthusiasts.
Public Response Summary
Public reaction to the commissioning of the feasibility study and the convening of the
Steering Committee, particularly among ATV users, has been favorable. Indeed, the work of
the Steering Committee may have shifted the perceptions of the ATV enthusiast community
from expecting land for a trail facility to come from outside their community to recognizing
that the realization of a trail facility will come from the mobilization of the their own
resources.
13
Earth Conservancy
PaATVing.com has contributed to the empowerment of the ATVing community by providing
a forum by which the community’s members may question and discuss the important issues
of establishing safe and legal venues for their sport, which is their ultimate goal. Black
Diamond ATV Club has set a standard for demonstrating the responsibility of most ATV
users, and extended the discussion of how much the ATVing community can do to make its
presence desirable to the larger community.
Opposition to ATV use is significant, but not organized. Generally, opposition to ATV use
as reported in local newspaper articles is a reaction to irresponsible or illegal ATV user
behavior. There does not appear to be a philosophical opposition to the existence of ATVs,
suggesting that if ATV use was increasingly conducted at safe and legal venues, opposition
to ATV use would subsequently decrease.
14
Earth Conservancy
Financial Feasibility and Sustainability
The steering committee explored issues of financial feasibility and sustainability including
the expenses associated with facility development and operation, sources of revenue, and
finally, economic impacts to the region.
Expenses
Expenses associated with the development of an ATV Trail facility include securing land,
planning and design, permitting, construction costs, facility operations costs, and
maintenance.
Securing Land
The largest single expense in the development of an ATV trail facility is securing land. Land
can be secured by several methods including purchase, lease, or other transfers of ownership
such as easements or (options to) purchase agreements. A fee simple purchase is perhaps the
most desirable arrangement because, other than adherence to the requirements of the agency
providing funding for the purchase, or deed restrictions placed by any given grantor,
ownership allows some flexibility. However, this alternative is initially the most expensive
because the prospective owner must have, or be able to secure by grant or loan, the entire
cost of the property up front.
A lease agreement can be beneficial to the extant, or existing, landowner as well as the
prospective land manager. In an appropriate agreement, the extant landowner is paid a fee
for the use of their land, allowing them continued ownership of the asset, as well income
from it for the duration of the lease agreement. The lessee benefits by taking use of the
property without the burden of securing a full purchase price. The lease agreement does
require agreement between the owner and the lessee as to the proper use of the land, the
duration of the agreement, the method of generating income from the land and share of that
income between the owner and lessee, as well as liability and other issues. An example of a
beneficial lease agreement for the establishment of an ATV trail facility is that between the
owners of the land upon which Rausch Creek Motorsports Park is operated, and the TCTRI
in Schuylkill County. More information is available about the TCTRI in the Case Studies
section of this study.
A (option to) purchase agreement can also be beneficial to the extant landowner as well as
the prospective land manager. With this kind of agreement the prospective landowner
secures, usually with a down-payment and subsequent regular payments, the option to
purchase the tract at an agreed price at a later time. The down-payment essentially purchases
the option, while subsequent regular payments retain the right to use the land immediately.
These regular payments may be amortized, further reducing the purchase price at the time the
option is exercised. As in a lease agreement, the extant landowner and the prospective
landowner are bound to agreement as to the use of the land, the duration of the agreement
and liability issues, as both parties possess interest in the land for a time. However, this
15
Earth Conservancy
agreement has greater sustainability for the prospective landowner’s enterprise, as the
prospective landowner will at some future time enjoy the benefits of land ownership.
Securing easements may be useful for the establishment of limited trails. Easements are
generally rights of passage granted across narrow strips of land for a relatively modest price.
This would be a useful means of establishing connectivity between isolated ATV use
facilities, thus building a trail system. This would not be a particularly useful means of
developing a complete trail facility.
Planning and Design
After a tract of land is secured, a trail system and its appurtenances must be planned and
designed. Ideally, this work would be contracted to professional engineers, who are familiar
with the design of such facilities. Following are lists of some considerations in facility
design. These lists are not intended to be exhaustive, but are offered as helps in determining
the feasibility of establishing an ATV facility in the Lower Wyoming Valley.
Permitting
In addition to actual trail design, permitting is an important part of a complete trail facility
planning. The Pennsylvania Trail Design Manual for Off-highway Recreational Vehicles
published by the Larson Design Group (2003) contains valuable information for the design of
a suitable off-highway vehicle facility. That document lists the individual permits that would
be required for a full-service ATV facility:
•
Wetland Review
•
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI)
•
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC)
•
Labor and Industry
•
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
•
Sewage Facilities
•
Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control
•
Local Permits
•
PENNDOT Highway Occupancy Permit
Construction Costs
After planning and design have been completed and all permits have been secured,
construction costs must be considered. The Park Guidelines for Off-Highway Vehicles by
Fogg (2002), published by the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, offers
estimated costs for general categories of activities associated with the development of an offhighway facility. The following estimated costs are from Fogg, and are offered as evidence
of the range of costs for facility construction.
•
12 miles of 8’ wide trail - $100,000
•
Training Area with Fencing and Restrooms - $69,000
•
Four Acre Obstacle Course with Fencing and Restrooms - $497,000
•
Entry Roads and Parking for 20 Vehicles - $25,000
16
Earth Conservancy
Facility Operations
"Operations" is the component of facility establishment that includes the day-to-day running
of the facility. Appropriately planning the operations of a facility is key to the long-term
sustainability of that facility. "Operations" includes the daily costs of (Fogg, 2002):
•
Utility system
•
Landscape maintenance
•
Trail grooming
•
Trash pickup
•
Fee collection
•
Liability
•
Security and enforcement
Maintenance
Finally, maintenance costs must be considered in the planning of any sustainable facility.
The continual care of a facility will ensure it is safe and enjoyable to use. While other
aspects of facility development require funding, maintenance is unique in that this may be the
place where human capital, in terms of volunteers, is most valuable. Generally, maintenance
includes (Fogg, 2002):
•
Painting
•
Repair of the hardscape
•
Repair of the buildings
•
Repair of the utilities
•
Repair and/or resurfacing of roads, parking, and trails
Estimated Expenses
Following is a chart outlining estimated expenses for the development of an ATV Trail
facility in Luzerne County. These estimates are based upon several sources including Fogg
(2002), consulting engineering experience, and the reported expenses from actual case
studies, including interviews with regional facilities managers. In some instances, we began
with costs from Fogg, which uses costs based upon national averages and which are higher
than costs reported in Pennsylvania. We then adjusted those costs to be more congruent with
expected costs in Luzerne County as indicated by our consulting engineering experience and
from interviews with facility managers in Pennsylvania who revealed some of their actual
costs.
17
Earth Conservancy
Estimated Expenses - 5 Year Build
$1,000,000.00
Land
$50,000.00
Permitting
Design
7% of Construction Total
Construction
General Site Development
Architectural Structures
Paved Parking Areas
Utilities
ATV Obstacle Course
Bog Area
Hill-climb Area
Track Area
Trails ($5,000 / Mile Trails)
Contract Administration
Operations
Total Construction
(Including Insurance Costs of
$12,000 to $15,000 / Year)
$93,940.00
$245,000.00
$250,000.00
$100,000.00
$270,000.00
$377,000.00
$100,000.00
$93,940.00
$1,435,940.00
$400,000.00
$250,000.00
Maintenance
$3,229,880.00
Total 5 Year Build
1 Year Expenses (Avg.)
$645,976.00
Year 1 Expenses
$761,128.00
Year 2 Expenses
$617,188.00
Year 3 Expenses
$617,188.00
Year 4 Expenses
$617,188.00
Year 5 Expenses
$617,188.00
$3,229,880.00
Total 5 Year Build
18
Earth Conservancy
Revenues
Possible sources of revenue for sustaining an ATV Trail facility include memberships and
usage fees, grants, events, training programs, storage rentals, and human capital in the form
of volunteers.
Memberships and Usage Fees
Usage Fees are fees that may be charged to users of a facility as a means of funding that
facility’s operations. Fees may be arranged in a schedule with categories for periods of use.
For example, daily and seasonal rates may be charged, with seasonal rates higher than daily
rates, but low enough to be attractive to regular user of the facility. If a non-profit
organization owns the facility, membership fees for regular users may be assessed with lower
usage rates charged to their members than those charge to non-members. Similarly, if a
governmental entity owns the facility, lower usage fees may be charged to the citizens within
that entity’s jurisdiction than the fees charged to other users. While grants may provide the
bulk of cash necessary for land purchases or capital improvements, usage fees would be a
primary source of funding for operations and maintenance of the facility.
A detrimental effect of charging usage fees would be the impact to the facilities coverage
under Title 68 regarding the limitation of liability to land owners that allow the recreational
use of their facilities without charge. Charging usage fees makes the cost of liability an issue
in the cost of doing business.
DCNR does not charge usage fees for its ATV trails; however the Federal government
charges usage fees for ATV trail riding in National Forests, and private owners charge usage
fees for riding at their facilities.
Grants
DCNR may use money from the registration fees and fines they collect to award grants to
municipalities and organizations, both non-profit and for-profit, for ATV use on lands other
than those owned by the Commonwealth. Grants may be used to buy land, develop plans and
surveys, construct and maintain ATV trails and parks, buy equipment, and conduct training
relating to ATV use (PA DCNR Internet Site, accessed 4/15/2003,
www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/atv/getinvolved.htm).
Events
Events are ways that a facility owner/manager can promote their sport by raising awareness
among the general population, attract new enthusiasts to the sport, promote their own facility,
and provide income to the facility. The focus of events can vary widely, from fun runs and
picnicking for families to racing or “trials” events that demonstrate extreme capabilities of
riders and machines.
19
Earth Conservancy
The success of any event depends upon a clearly stated focus, participant targeted publicity,
sufficient preparation, and a committed volunteer force. When all of these elements are
present, an event may benefit the facility by bringing new users and providing income (Fogg,
2002). The sport itself, as well as ATV businesses may benefit by the event bringing new
interest and enthusiasts. Local business may benefit by the infusion of tourist dollars
surrounding the event, particularly if the event is an all-weekend event, requiring local meals
and lodging.
Training Programs
The single most important way of reducing the danger of ATV use is the development of safe
riding habits by ATV enthusiasts. The best way to disseminate safe riding information is for
responsible, experienced riders to demonstrate safe riding behavior to irresponsible or
inexperienced riders. A way to do this is through the development of training programs such
as riders’ clinics, or even trail licensing for riders who have completed a riders’ clinic or
passed a competency test. Riders’ clinics could be conducted by local ATV club members,
and include such elements as knowledge about rules and sanctions, demonstrated
competencies, and basic machine maintenance. The depth and breadth of such training
programs would be best determined by facility owner/managers, along with senior members
of local ATV clubs and local ATV dealers.
Presently, Commonwealth law requires that children between the ages of 10 and 15 years
take an approved ATV training course before they may operate an ATV off their parents’
property (children under 10 years of age may only operate an ATV on their parents’
property). Among the training courses offered by an ATV facility owner/manager could be
an approved safety training course for children, ages 10 through 15 years, thus promoting
safety for its ridership and good will in the community.
Storage Rentals
Except for ATV trail users whose homes adjoin facility property, users must transport their
machines to a facility. Some users may prefer the opportunity to leave their ATV(s) at the
facility for a season, or indefinitely. Providing all-weather storage facilities is a way to
benefit the users of a trail facility as well as the owners/managers of the facility. Storage
facilities could be simply built with inexpensive materials, and would be suitable projects for
volunteer labor. A rental fee charged to storage building users would offset the cost of
construction, and eventually provide income to the facility, while filling the need of some
trail users to keep their machines at the trailhead.
Volunteers
While difficult to quantify as income, the efforts of volunteers may contribute to the
sustainability of a facility by contributing to its maintenance without increasing its financial
liability. Volunteers may also contribute to the facility by performing specialized operational
tasks for which they are qualified such as safety training or administration, or generalizable
tasks such as providing labor to reduce the costs of construction.
20
Earth Conservancy
Estimated Revenues
Income/
Number
Each
Category
Total
Sub-total
Total
Fees
Memberships
Usage Fees
Daily
Monthly
Total Usage Fees
Fines
2,000
200
2,400
1,000
25
100
Training
Storage Rentals
500
25
12,500
572,500
4
2,000
8,000
200
25
5,000
20
420
8,400
593,900
Yearly Total
2,969,500
5 Year Sub-total
Grant
60,000
100,000
160,000
Total Fees
Events
400,000
1
1,000,000
1,000,000
3,969,500
5 Year Total
This chart outlines estimated potential revenues from an ATV Trail facility, if developed, in Luzerne
County. These estimates are based upon several sources including Fogg (2002) and the reported
expenses from actual case studies.
21
Earth Conservancy
Regional Economic Impact
Two methods may be used to identify demand for a prospective ATV trail facility. These
methods are the Activity Participation Rate Method and the Comparative Demand Method.
The Activity Participation Rate Method uses a factor that represents the percentage of the
population that engages in a given activity, and multiplying that factor times the population
to arrive at an estimate of participants in that activity. The Comparative Demand Method
compares regional features at the proposed facility with regional features of an extant facility
to gauge possible outcomes at the proposed facility.
Service Area
Before an appropriate activity engagement factor can be applied, an appropriate service area
must be determined. Service area is the geographic extent of the population the park will
serve (Fogg, 2002). Our view of an appropriate service area for an ATV facility located in
the Lower Wyoming Valley further discerns between an immediate service area and an
extended service area. We would expect most usage of such a facility to come from Luzerne
County and its immediately adjoining counties, thus defining this as the immediate service
area. The following population numbers for Luzerne County and its adjoining counties are
from the Year 2000 U.S. Census:
•
Luzerne County has a population of 319,250 (Census 2000 Profile,
Pennsylvania)
•
The counties immediately adjoining Luzerne County and their
population numbers are:
Carbon County:
58,802
Columbia County:
64,151
Lackawanna County: 213,295
Monroe County:
138,687
Schuylkill County: 150,336
Wyoming County:
28,080
•
The population total for Luzerne County and its adjoining counties is:
972,601
However, a facility of significant size and services offered could attract users from beyond
Luzerne County’s adjoining counties. This would be an extended service area. The potential
population reached is described below in the Driving Range section of this report. The
potential economic impact explored in this report includes the extended service area, but
participation rate factors are weighted toward the immediate service area. For simplicity in
the discussion about potential service area based on driving range that follows, the factors are
weighted toward the one-hour driving time rather than using the specific populations of
Luzerne County and its adjoining counties.
22
Earth Conservancy
Driving Range
The distances that ATV enthusiasts are willing to drive to an ATV facility vary depending
upon several factors, including the location of population centers, the uniqueness of the
facility, the availability of similar facilities at other sites, activities provided, promotional
efforts, and ease of accessibility (Fogg, 2002).
According to Fogg (2002) site developers, when considering the population of possible users,
must consider the population within a three-hour drive time of the proposed facility site.
Further, facilities that offer sufficient trail activity for a weekend can be expected to draw
users from a four to six-hour drive time. Following are mileage and driving times from
Wilkes-Barre in Luzerne County to major eastern cities:
•
Allentown, PA
78 miles
1.5 hours
•
Baltimore, MD
192 miles
3.5 hours
•
Harrisburg, PA
126 miles
2.0 hours
•
New York, NY
125 miles
2.5 hours
•
Philadelphia, PA
117 miles
2.0 hours
•
Pittsburgh, PA
280 miles
5.0 hours
These mileage and estimated driving time figures demonstrate how well placed Luzerne
County is for attracting tourism dollars from significant population areas.
Populations within specific driving times were calculated based upon figures from the Year
2000 U.S. Census, by County populations. Driving distance radii were drawn with the
center-point at Wilkes-Barre, and divided counties were weighted considering area and
populations concentrations. The estimated populations of areas within given driving times
are:
•
1 Hour driving time (50 miles radius)
1,785,524
•
2 Hours driving time (100 miles radius)
11,970,397
•
25,766,895
23
Earth Conservancy
24
Earth Conservancy
Activity Participation Rate Method
Fogg, 2002, quotes the 1999 Roper Starch Survey showing off-road vehicle driving at seven
percent of the population. There are concerns with that number for the purposes here
because it includes all off-road vehicle use, such as four-wheel-drives, sport-utility-vehicles,
and off-road motorcycles as well as ATVs. However, the seven percent figure is the best
general figure available, and may be useful so long as the reader is aware that because ATV
use is one of several uses combined in the factor, the resulting estimate will be high in terms
of ATV use.
Using the seven percent figure, an off-road trail facility located in Luzerne County very near
Wilkes-Barre could expect to draw from a possible facility user population of nearly two
million, located within a three-hour driving time. Again, this number includes all offroaders, not just ATV users. Seven percent of the populations within the one, two, and three
hour driving times would be:
•
124,987
•
837,927
•
1,803,683
However, using actual census data and ATV registrations in Pennsylvania, more accurate
numbers may be developed for Pennsylvania. Using the ATV registration figures for
Luzerne County and its adjoining counties, and dividing those by population figures for those
same counties, a percentage of ATV ownership for the region around Luzerne County may
be calculated. That number is 3.23 percent. Also, using the population data for Pennsylvania
and the total ATV registration figures for Pennsylvania, a percentage for the state may be
calculated. That number calculates to 2.03 percent.
An appropriate method of calculating possible populations of trail users by driving time
would be to use the 3.23 percent figure for the one hour driving time calculation, and the 2.03
percent figure for two and three hour driving times, as these distances represent areas outside
the Luzerne County region, and may be best represented by the statewide number. As such,
the possible users by driving time would be:
•
57,672
•
264,425
•
544,494
Using the factors calculated for Pennsylvania, an off-road trail facility located in the Lower
Wyoming Valley near Wilkes-Barre, could expect to draw from a possible ATV enthusiast
population of approximately one-half million users located within a three-hour driving time.
This figure probably more closely represents the expectations of an ATV enthusiast
population for the northeast Pennsylvania region than the figure calculated using the 1999
Roper Starch Survey factor.
25
Earth Conservancy
Comparative Demand Method
The comparative demand method compares the regional features of a proposed facility to
those of an extant facility with similar regional features. A very successful abandoned mine
lands-to-trails facility is the Hatfield-McCoy facility in West Virginia, and is often the first
facility that comes to mind when abandoned mine lands-to-trails is mentioned. Indeed,
Hatfield-McCoy was often mentioned in discussions with interested persons through the
course of this study research. At first blush the ecology of this facility does appear similar to
the Luzerne County region; however upon closer inspection many factors affecting that
facility’s success are dissimilar to Luzerne County’s circumstances. Chief among these
dissimilarities is governmental participation. The Hatfield-McCoy facility was created by an
act of the West Virginia Legislature. By so doing, a myriad of governmental agencies were
able to be mobilized for development of that facility. A second dissimilarity is the size of the
facility. The Hatfield-McCoy facility is larger than any of the individual parcels in Luzerne
County. A third dissimilarity is the mining operation of the land. At Hatfield-McCoy, some
mining operations are ongoing. As these ongoing operations shift, the trail system shifts
accordingly, offering a constantly changing trail system. In Luzerne County, mining
operations that have ceased have ceased permanently, leaving the land blighted and in need
of remediation.
This is not to say that an abandoned mining lands-to-trails facility in Luzerne County would
not be successful because some regional features are dissimilar from the Hatfield-McCoy
operation. Rather, we are suggesting that a facility in Luzerne County would be successful,
or not, based upon its own merits, not its comparative features to Hatfield-McCoy. We do
not yet have enough examples with similar characteristics to suggest success or failure in
Luzerne County using the comparative demand method.
Economic Impacts
Daily Expenditures
A survey conducted during year 2000 in Colorado showed that off-highway vehicle users
spent $100/day for day trips and $265/day for overnight trips (Fogg, 2002). Using the
possible demand figures for facility user populations calculated above, the possible
expenditures by off-road trail facility users could be:
•
•
Day Trips
$5,767,200
$26,442,500
$54,449,400
Overnight Trips
$15,283,080
$70,072,625
$144,290,910
26
Earth Conservancy
However, these calculations use average expenditure figures from a study in Colorado, which
may represent average expenditures generally across the country, but may not accurately
represent average expenditures in the Northeast region of the country.
A tool useful for better understanding possible economic impacts in Luzerne County may be
a study prepared by Drs. Okrant and Goss of the Institute for New Hampshire Studies at the
Plymouth State University. They conducted a study of economic impacts of ATV and
Trailbiking tourism in New Hampshire from July 2002 to June 2003 for The Granite State
All-terrain Vehicle Association. Their study may be useful here in that their daily and
overnight trip expenditures are from a region of the country much closer to Luzerne County
than Colorado, and their study considers the numbers of trips in a season by active
enthusiasts.
Drs. Okrant and Goss found that, in New Hampshire, the average spending per visitor day by
ATV/trailbiking enthusiasts was $60.12 for in-state travel parties and $46.40 for out-of-state
travel parties. A possible explanation for the in-state spending figure being higher than the
out-of-state figure for the New Hampshire study is the size of that state. Out-of-state visitors
to New Hampshire from adjoining states would not necessarily have to stay overnight, and
could conceivably pack in their supplies, limiting their expenditures in-state. In the Luzerne
County region of Pennsylvania, out-of-state visitors staying overnight is a reasonable
expectation. In Pennsylvania, the out-of-state visitor expenditure figure would probably be
higher than the in-state visitor expenditure figure. However, lacking a study of the depth of
the New Hampshire study specifically for Pennsylvania, the New Hampshire study figures
will be used here, recognizing that the estimated dollar figures for in-state expenditures
among those traveling greater distances could be higher.
Applying those figures to the possible facility users’ population surrounding Luzerne County
gives these results:
•
$3,467,241
•
$15,897,231
•
$25,264,522
For these totals, the in-state rate for daily expenditures generated by the New Hampshire
study was used for the one- and two-hour driving time categories. The out-of state rate for
daily expenditures was used for the three-hour driving time category.
Annual Expenditures
In Idaho, a survey conducted during year 2000 showed that off-highway vehicle users spent
an average of $3,000/person for clothing, lodging, restaurants, groceries, gas, and
miscellaneous items associated with their sport (Fogg, 2002). Applying that figure to the
activity participation rates calculated above, the annual expenditures by ATV enthusiasts
near Luzerne County could be:
•
$173,016,000
•
$793,275,000
•
$1,633,482,000
27
Earth Conservancy
While the accuracy of these figures is questionable because the annual expenditures for ATV
enthusiasts in Idaho do not necessarily apply to ATV enthusiasts in Pennsylvania, the size of
these dollar figures is useful for understanding that ATVing is not an inexpensive sport, and
enthusiasts are willing to spend significant sums to support their activities. The region that
attracts ATV enthusiasts by providing the facilities they need will position itself to benefit
from the cash these enthusiasts are willing to spend for their sport.
Financial Feasibility and Sustainability Summary
The single largest expense in establishing an ATV trail facility is the land. Associated
expenses are significant, though, and include trail design, environmental permitting,
construction, operations, and maintenance. However, these costs can be manageable when
balanced against possible revenues available to the operators of a successful facility.
Possible revenues include usage fees, grants (for land purchases and physical plant
development), proceeds from special events, fees from training programs, profits from
renting storage facilities, and one of the most significant – volunteers.
A successful facility can do more than sustain itself. A successful facility can attract
enthusiasts from beyond its own region, infusing the area with tourism dollars. Studies from
around the US have shown that ATV enthusiasts enjoy a sport that can be expensive. The
sport requires not only the costs of the machines and their maintenance, but also requires the
ability to transport the machines, operating costs, insurance and registration, specialized
clothing and safety gear, and travel expenses. Some of these costs are necessarily spent near
the enthusiasts’ homes; however some of these costs are spent nearer the facility where the
sport is enjoyed.
As mentioned, Luzerne County has the fourth highest ATV registration numbers in the
Commonwealth. Not only is Luzerne County home to many ATV enthusiasts, but the
region’s proximity to significant population centers such as New York City, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh, as well as other significant regional centers
such as Allentown, Erie, and Harrisburg place Luzerne County in a unique position to attract
significant tourism dollars. The beauty of the Northeast Pennsylvania region, as well as the
popularity of ATVing beyond rural and small-town areas, suggest that a significant ATV
facility in Luzerne County could be well-placed for attracting some of the available tourism
dollars.
28
Earth Conservancy
Conceptual Locations
Important to establishing an ATV trail facility is choosing the most feasible location.
Choosing the most appropriate location depends upon a matrix of needs issues such as the
types of ATVs to be supported by the facility, and the riding styles preferred by ATV
enthusiasts, balanced against such factors as ownership options, available land,
environmental concerns, proximity to residential areas, and site access.
Following is an exploration of needs issues beginning with a very general discussion of the
types of ATVs, which leads to the types of facilities preferred by ATV enthusiasts. These
needs issues are then followed by an exploration of environmental and ecological concerns
and finally, an exploration of sites in the Lower Wyoming Valley.
Criteria for Consideration
Several criteria should be considered during the process of choosing the best location for an
ATV trail facility. The foundational consideration is to choose open land. As already
mentioned, a full-scale trail facility will require a large tract of land. An appropriate tract
will be free of impediments to its intended purpose, and will also be separate from other land
uses that are not congruent with the intended purpose.
By their very nature ATVs create noise and dust. Developed property should be avoided if at
all possible. Proximity to residential development will negatively impact the residences with
unwelcome noise and dust. If the ATV facility is of sufficient size and attracts enthusiasts
from any distance, traffic to the facility could negatively impact residential streets and traffic
patterns. Impacts to industrial development are less a concern in terms of noise and dust;
however, proximity to an area developed for industrial use could place ATV transporters on
roadways with heavy truck traffic.
Close proximity to developed areas could also place ATVs in close proximity to the objects
of development such as above and below ground utilities. Utilities, whether located above or
below ground, are typically associated with easements, which may affect trail development.
Underground utilities typically surface at some point and the locations of these facilities can
also affect trail development. While these kinds of impediments to trail development can be
overcome, the imagination and work required add cost to the establishment of an ATV
facility.
Impediments to the intended purpose aside, fulfilling the intended purpose of an ATV trail
facility is best accomplished by seeking open land, separate from development. As already
mentioned, ATV users have varying reasons for their ATV use. For some enthusiasts the
machines themselves are the points of interest, so providing challenge areas and trails for
simply enjoying riding is sufficient. Others appreciate ATVs for their utility in accessing
hunting, trapping, or fishing opportunities. Others appreciate ATVs for their utility in
accessing scenic vistas or observing flora and fauna. All of these intended ATV uses require
open space separate from development.
29
Earth Conservancy
Property ownership is an important consideration in selecting a tract of land for use. More is
written about this issue in the Ownership / Operational Alternatives section of this study.
Types of ATVs
Sport ATVs are typically lighter, and more nimble in handling. These machines are designed
for riding at higher speeds, and turning and climbing more aggressively than other types of
ATVs. Sport ATVs are useful for general trail riding, but are capable of more extreme
riding.
Utility ATVs are typically heavier and carry utilitarian accessories such as cargo racks and
winches. These are useful for packing supplies and gear to remote destinations. Utility
ATVs are useful for general trail riding, but would be less useful for extreme riding or racing.
Typically, these are the machines used for work that requires access to remote areas, or are
used by hunters, trappers, or fishers who enjoy their sport at more remote locations.
The types of ATVs reflect, to some degree, the attitudes and needs of their owners. While
some riders use ATVs as an accessory to another sport or work, for others the ATV is the
sport. A trail facility that appeals to the broad range of enthusiasts would include significant
trail mileage to allow trail riding in search of exceptional vistas, or the simple pleasures of
the forested outdoors. A facility with broad appeal will also include areas that present
challenges to the ATVs and their riders.
Linear Trails
Perhaps the most desired type
of off-road facilities because
they are usable by all types of
ATVs, linear trails require the
most significant land
investment in terms of volume.
ATV enthusiasts desire trails
that are not only challenging,
but also trails that are fresh.
That is, a short trail ridden
repeatedly becomes
uninteresting. Longer trails, or
systems of trails, allow riders
to experience the trails as
though new, or fresh, without the feeling of being over the same ground again and again.
Providing long trails or systems of trails requires hundreds, even thousands, of acres. An
example of the space requirements for linear trails is Paragon in Luzerne County. This
facility is able to offer 130 miles of trails on 15,000 acres of land. More information is
available about Paragon in the Case Studies section of this study.
30
Earth Conservancy
Just by virtue of the scale, facilities in the thousands of acres increase the effort required for
such issues as trail construction, maintenance, and enforcement. Significant trail systems
extant in Pennsylvania are those operated by the TCTRI (6,000 acres), Paragon (15,000
acres) and Rausch Creek Motorsports (650 acres). The Cambria County Conservation and
Recreation Authority recently received a grant to purchase 6,000 acres for conversion into an
ATV trail riding facility.
“Challenge” or “Play” Areas/Tracks
In addition to trails, some
ATV enthusiasts enjoy the use
of areas that require more
advanced technical riding
skills that test both riders and
machines. Such areas include
characteristics such as riding
through deep mud and water,
riding on steep slopes, riding
over large boulders, and
perhaps short, steep slopes that
allow jumping of the
machines. These areas are
referred to in this study as “challenge” areas, but are also affectionately referred to as “play”
areas by ATV enthusiasts, many of whom enjoy this riding style. ATVs engaged in these
kinds of challenges are particularly destructive, especially in or near water and on steep
slopes, where riding in the absence of sure traction is the challenge.
Allowing ATV riders to engage these kinds of challenges as they occur naturally raises
certain environmental issues such as the destruction of flora, the destruction of fauna
habitats, exposing soil to advanced erosion, and the sediment pollution of streams. To avoid
environmental conflicts, and provide ATV enthusiasts with the challenges they desire,
requires the establishment of challenge areas that provide the riding characteristics and
features the off-road enthusiasts enjoy, but in a controlled facility, thereby reducing potential
conflicts with naturally occurring challenges.
Challenge areas require less space than trails facilities, but encourage more destructive
riding, requiring greater control over possible environmental conflicts. These areas would
appeal to riders of sport ATVs. Essentially, a challenge area must be placed in a relatively
isolated area, the location of which has no impact on sensitive environmental habitats.
Challenge areas may be incorporated into a larger trails facility, or may exist as a facility on
their own right.
Tracks generally promote competitive riding. These may be flat, or incorporate challenges
similar to motocross tracks. Liability becomes an importation issue when competition is
encouraged, increasing insurance premiums as much as tenfold.
31
Earth Conservancy
The space required for special purpose facilities depends upon the unique combination of
components the facility offers. A partial listing from Park Guidelines for OHVs by Fogg
(2002) follows:
•
Hill Climb – 15 acres, more or less
•
Motocross – 15 acres, more or less
•
Training Area – 10 acres, more or less
•
Trailhead – 1 acre, more or less
Discussions in the steering committee identified the ideal facility as a linear trail system
connecting play areas.
Environmental Issues
Environmental issues are an important consideration because the ATV facility operators will
want to be good stewards of the land they use, and complex permitting processes will require
good stewardship. Environmental issues include concern for the natural diversity of the land,
the topography of the site including steep slopes and wetland areas, the soils present, cultural
and historical resources, and site access.
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI), Supplement No. 1, Search Forms were
submitted to the Pennsylvania DEP for the area north of the Susquehanna River from
Plymouth extending to Moon Lake, and the area south of the Susquehanna River extending
from Nanticoke to Glen Lyon. Inventory was requested for very large areas (5,000 acres for
the southern site and 1,500 acres for the northern site), so specific locations of the protected
flora and fauna habitat “hits” cannot be determined. Continued research with specific
agencies and the determination of specific locations of these protected habitat conflicts would
be a foundational step in the development of trail design.
•
Area North of the Susquehanna River (in Plymouth Township)
A PNDI search receipt dated 6/12/2004, revealed the following “hits:”
3 potential plant conflicts
•
Elymus Trachycaulus – Slender Wheatgrass – N – TU
(1)
•
Prunus Pumila Var Susquehanae – PT (2)
1 potential land invertebrate conflicts
•
Hesperia Leonardus – Leonard’s Skipper (1)
2 potential Federally Listed Species of Special Concern (Not
listed on the PNDI return)
•
Area South of the Susquehanna River (in Newport Township)
A PNDI search receipt dated 5/25/2004, revealed the following hits:
2 potential plant conflicts
•
Bromus Kalmii (Brome Grass – N – TU (1)
•
Elymus Trachycaulus – Slender Wheatgrass – N – TU
(1)
1 potential Habitat conflict
•
Ephemeral/Fluctuating Natural Pool (1)
32
Earth Conservancy
2 potential Federally Listed Species of Special Concern (Not
listed on the PNDI return)
Using the US Department of
Agriculture, Soils
Conservation Service Soils
Survey for Luzerne County,
soils that are considered
unusable for roadway, trail, or
pathway construction due to
steep topography were
identified and delineated on
USGS mapping of the Earth
Conservancy properties both
north and south of the
Susquehanna River. Placing
ATV trails in these areas
would result in accelerated
erosion, as well as possibly
dangerous riding conditions for ATV enthusiasts. As much as possible, trail establishment in
steep slope areas should be avoided. A possible conflict regarding steep slope areas is that
riding up or down steep slopes is precisely the kind of challenge that some ATV enthusiasts
enjoy. A resolution to this conflict would be to provide, at well-planned locations, steep
slopes for use as challenges by ATV enthusiasts. The planning of these areas would consider
soil type, drainage, and slope preservation, and would be well-marked as appropriate
challenge areas. These areas would also require more maintenance by facility operators to
prevent excessive deterioration.
Using the US Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service Soils Survey for
Luzerne County, soils that are considered hydric or otherwise unsuitable for roadway, trail,
or pathway construction due to characteristics that support wetlands habitats were identified
and delineated on USGS mapping of the EC properties both north and south of the
Susquehanna River. As much as possible, trail establishment in wetland areas should be
avoided. Wetlands are a protected habitat, and are easily destroyed. Again, as with steep
slope areas, riding in wet or muddy areas is precisely the kind of challenge that some ATV
enthusiasts enjoy. However, trails may never encroach on wetlands. Wetlands areas must be
identified and well-marked so that all ATV riders avoid them. A resolution to the conflict
with ATV riders who enjoy wet or muddy riding would be to develop challenge areas that
retain water, creating the conditions enthusiasts enjoy.
In addition to steep slope soils, and hydric soils, other soils may not be conducive to
sustainable trail establishment. The development of trails will require attention to the types
of soils impacted and appropriate measures taken to relocate the trails, or to mitigate the risk
to soils.
33
Earth Conservancy
A search of the National Register of Historic Places Information System reveals that no
conflicts with protected historic entities occur within the EC properties located in Plymouth
Township or Newport Township.
Site access is an ecological issue of great importance in facility establishment and operation.
Points of access may require the most forethought in the process of facility establishment and
require the most development. Essentially, the points of access of a facility should be
separate from residential or industrial development, but not isolated. Additionally, points of
access should allow sufficient space for the secure parking of transport vehicles, the safe offloading of ATVs, sufficient space for staging ATVs, possibly rest-room facilities for the
convenience of users, and check-in facilities, depending on the operations format. If a
facility operator chose to include storage facilities as part of their service, these would be
located at the points of access. Highway Occupancy Permits for driveways, stormwater
management engineering for parking areas, building permits for storage building, rest-rooms,
and check-in shacks, sanitary sewage for rest-rooms, and water and electricity utility
connections would all contribute to the complexity of points of access development. Because
of this level of complexity, points of access must be chosen carefully, where the services
desired may be provided, while avoiding negative impacts to other developed areas.
Existing/Planned Land Use
North of the Susquehanna River
EC has two parcels in Plymouth
Township, north of the
Susquehanna River. One parcel
is approximately 365 acres and
the second is approximately 420
acres. Luzerne County owns a
648 acres recreational park
surrounding Moon Lake. There
is a State Forest covering 1404
acres in Plymouth Township.
PA Route 29 crosses the State
Forest and divides these
properties offering no reasonable alternative for a safe trail crossing, limiting the movement
of potential trail users across the parcels from Plymouth to Moon Lake.
EC staff met with the Plymouth Township Supervisors to review the work of this study.
During this meeting the Supervisors indicated that they do not support ATV activities in the
southern reaches of the Township near the Susquehanna River because of concerns over
conflicts with residents in that area and possible future development there. This area
includes the two Earth Conservancy parcels in the southern region of the Township, one of
which is approximately 300 acres, and the other approximately 325 acres.
34
Earth Conservancy
Luzerne County, along with Lackawanna County, in their Open Space, Greenways and
Outdoor Recreation Master Plan, recommends recreational activities other than off-road
vehicle riding at the Moon Lake Park. However, illegal ATV trail riding is occurring there.
ATV enthusiasts that are members of the steering committee believe that the establishment of
ATV trails at the Moon Lake Park would significantly reduce the illegal riding in that area.
The Moon Lake Park is adjacent to a State Forest, and the DCNR recently purchased
property known as the Theta lands adjacent to the State Forest. DCNR’s intention for the
Theta lands area is land preservation.
A potential trail system extending from the Earth Conservancy parcels in the southern region
of Plymouth Township through the DCNR property, continuing through the State Forest, and
into Moon Lake Park was discussed. Several factors, including the Township Supervisors’
concerns with ATV use, combined with the difficulty of the Route 29 crossing, the intentions
for appropriate land use of the DCNR and the State Forest Service, and finally the intentions
of the County for appropriate use of Moon Lake Park combine to exclude Plymouth
Township from consideration for the kind of ATV trail facility desired.
Earth Conservancy would be willing to consider selling land to the appropriate entity to
facilitate the establishment of an ATV facility.
South of the Susquehanna River
The steering committee also explored potential sites in Newport Township. Earth
Conservancy owns several parcels south of the Susquehanna River in Newport Township.
These tracts are significant in size, and are appealing for ATV use, as evidenced by the trails
already established there, albeit illegally. Earth Conservancy does consider some of this land
useful for residential and industrial development. However, outside of those areas, there
remains significant land available for the establishment of legal ATV trails. Earth
Conservancy indicated that it is not opposed to selling land in this area for the establishment
of ATV trails. However, it is
concerned with the
sustainability of any land
development undertaken on
land that it sells. Earth
Conservancy indicated it
would consider selling land to
DCNR or Luzerne County,
thereby establishing secure
long-term ownership and
subsequent responsible
management. Earth
Conservancy is not interested
in selling land and having the
purchasers’ enterprise fail,
resulting in the land lying
without use or maintenance.
35
Earth Conservancy
If an owner could be found that satisfies Earth Conservancy’s concern for sustainability,
trails established on that land could provide possible connectivity between Earth
Conservancy’s parcels and the 21-mile Penobscot Ridge / Wilkes-Barre Mountain Trail,
which is to be established by Luzerne County specifically for ATV riding at some point in
the future.
The Newport Township Supervisors have indicated that they are interested in continuing
discussions regarding the establishment of trails in the area. The Supervisors have strong
concerns about the ownership and operations of the trails, and would want to ensure that trail
locations do not affect residents of the Township. Newport Township would want to review
more detailed plans about ownership, operations, and trail locations before they could render
their final decision on the concept.
Other Areas
Luzerne County, along with neighboring Lackawanna County, has developed an Open Space,
Greenways and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan. This plan delineates both Counties’ open
space by ecological value and size, as well as proposing conservation areas. In proposing
conservation areas by type, the Plan is able to suggest appropriate recreational uses at each of
their designated open space areas.
The Plan presents a matrix showing open space areas and appropriate activities for those
areas. Off-road vehicle usage is one of 23 recreational categories listed.
Two Highlands areas (East Buck Mountain Highlands and Shickshinny Mountain
Highlands), one natural area (Spring Brook Natural Area), and one trail (Penobscot Ridge /
Wilkes-Barre Mountain Trail) are listed as appropriate areas for off-road vehicle use. The
combined acreage of the two highlands areas is 9,460 acres. The size of the natural area is
1,418 acres. The length of the trail is 21.0 miles. The designation of these areas seems to
indicate that the County has an interest in providing use opportunities for Off-road vehicle
enthusiasts.
Luzerne County’s Open Space, Greenways and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan may
become an important factor in location selection for an ATV trail facility. The County’s
property at Moon Lake in Plymouth Township does not support off-road vehicle recreation,
according to the Plan. This, combined with the bisecting Route 29, limits the viability of
significant trails development in Plymouth Township. However, the Penobscot Ridge /
Wilkes-Barre Mountain Trail extending through Newport Township does support the
viability of the development of additional trails south of the Susquehanna River, possibly
connecting the County’s Trail with Nanticoke. A portion of Earth Conservancy land could
be useful for that kind of a connecting facility. Connectivity is important because the
establishment of a smaller trail facility that is connected to other trails becomes part of a
larger system.
36
Earth Conservancy
The remaining question is whether Luzerne County is prepared to add additional trails to its
Plan if Earth Conservancy is prepared to sell them the land, and whether the County is open
to purchasing the land and allowing trails establishment and management by a consortium of
ATV clubs, thereby limiting their costs to the purchase alone. The County has not yet
indicated the answers to these questions.
Conceptual Locations Summary
ATV owners’ reasons for going afield vary widely. Some hunt, trap, or fish; others observe
flora and fauna, or scenic vistas. For some, the ATVs are the point of interest. These
differences in ATV enthusiasts have driven the market to produce different kinds of
machines. Consideration of these differences may also drive the types of ATV facilities
established. Facilities enjoyed by ATV riders include linear trails, “challenge” or “play”
areas, and racing tracks.
The steering committee’s preference is a multi-use facility that would combine challenge
areas connected by linear trails. A facility so devised would appeal to the broadest range of
enthusiasts. Developing tracks for racing must be carefully considered by a prospective
facility operator because of the huge liability costs associated with competitive activities.
The ideal land for ATVing is open, in that it is not located near developed areas and is
relatively free from the trappings of development. Proximity to residential areas should be
avoided due to the noise and dust associated with ATV riding. Proximity to industrial
development is tolerable, but should be avoided, if possible.
Choosing a site that is open carries important ecological and environmental concerns
including: the protection of flora and fauna habitats; the protection of the terrain, whether
excessively steep or wet; easily erodable soils; protection of cultural and historic sites and;
site access. Trailhead sites will require the most complex planning because their
development will include public roadway interfaces, possible building construction,
connections to public utilities, and the permitting that accompanies each step in the
development process.
Earth Conservancy owns property north of the Susquehanna River in Plymouth Township;
these tracts lie near the Susquehanna River and Plymouth. However, these tracts are not
particularly useful for establishing ATV trail facilities, and Plymouth Township is not
interested in lending its support to the development of ATV trails. Route 29 bisects the area
between Plymouth and Moon Lake, limiting safe ATV travel across that highway. Further,
Luzerne County owns land around Moon Lake and has recommended other uses for that
property than off-road vehicle use.
Earth Conservancy has land holdings south of the Susquehanna River in Newport Township.
These tracts are relatively remote tracts that appeal to ATV riders. Newport Township
officials are interested in discussing the establishment of ATV trails, and would like to be
party to discussions about possible locations so that they may protect their residential
constituents. Also, Luzerne County, in its Open Space, Greenways and Outdoor Recreation
37
Earth Conservancy
Master Plan has recommended the establishment of a 21-mile ATV trail in Newport
Township. At least some of Earth Conservancy’s holdings in Newport Township show
potential for the establishment of ATV trails. Earth Conservancy is not opposed to selling
land for such a purpose, but is concerned with the sustainability of any purchaser’s
enterprise. Earth Conservancy could be willing to sell land to DCNR or to Luzerne County
for the establishment of trails. Whether Luzerne County would be willing to make such a
purchase is an open question.
38
Earth Conservancy
Ownership/Operational Alternatives
Several ownership alternatives are presented along with their respective strengths and
limitations with regard to the establishment of ATV trails.
Earth Conservancy
Earth Conservancy was formed to reclaim and reuse former coal company-owned lands in
Luzerne County through partnerships with government, business, and educational
institutions. Earth Conservancy’s insurance carrier does not permit the use of motorized
vehicles for recreational purposes on its properties, negating the possibility of Earth
Conservancy allowing the establishment of ATV trails on its land. Ownership of these tracts
would have to be transferred to other owner(s) before legal ATV riding could be established.
As such, establishing ATV trails on Earth Conservancy property is not an alternative.
With its focus on land reclamation, Earth Conservancy lacks adequate resources for
enforcement of illegal riding on its property, resulting in uncontrolled illegal ATV use. The
appeal of some of Earth Conservancy’s land holdings for ATV use combined with the level
of ATVing activity on its lands has given rise to the misperception in the ATVing
community that lands appearing to be unused are public lands. However, for the reasons
stated above, Earth Conservancy cannot simply declare ATV use legal, making its holdings
available for that use. Ownership of Earth Conservancy holdings must be transferred to
another owner before ATV trails can be legally established.
DCNR- Forestry
Presently DCNR presently maintains ATV trails within these State Forest lands (DCNR
Internet Site accessed 4/15/2003):
•
Buchanan State Forest (18 and 15 miles)
•
Susquehannock State Forest (43 miles)
•
Bald Eagle State Forest (7 miles)
•
Delaware State Forest (13, 8 and 7 miles)
•
Michaux State forest (36 – 42 miles)
•
Sproul State Forest (45 and 20 miles)
•
Tiadaghton State Forest (17 miles)
DCNR ownership has advantages, because it has the necessary experience and infrastructure
in place for trail ownership and operations. It has experience in all aspects of trail operations
including trail creation, trail management, liability issues, enforcement of regulations, and
funding for construction and maintenance. Further, DCNR ownership would satisfy Earth
Conservancy’s concerns for ownership sustainability.
Liability on State Forest lands is covered by the Pennsylvania Recreational Use Statute, Title
68, Chapter 11, and Section 477, which limits liability for owners who do not charge a fee for
use of their facilities. Under DCNR ownership, an additional level of enforcement is already
in place – DCNR Rangers. This level of enforcement supplements the enforcement by State
39
Earth Conservancy
and local police agencies, and Wildlife Conservation Officers and their Deputies on State
Game lands. DCNR ownership of ATV trails provides a system of funding already in place
including the use of ATV Registration fees, fines collected, and DCNR Grants.
DCNR ownership has disadvantages in that its ownership would limit trail creation to State
Forests, the timeline for approvals and processes that are part of any governmental agency,
and the competition for funding among and within state agencies. DCNR representatives
have indicated that DCNR would prefer, rather than establish significant new trail systems, to
grant funds to others interested in establishing trails.
Private Ownership
The private ownership of an ATV trail facility would require an individual or partnership
with the means to either purchase, or enter into a lease agreement for land. Such an
enterprise would most likely be operated as a business, similar to the facilities at Paragon
Adventure Park and Rausch Creek Motorsports Park. While the possibility of such an
enterprise developing in Luzerne County exists due to the demand for such a facility and the
availability of open land, the probability is limited by the likelihood of finding an individual
or partnership with the means to assume such a risk. The probability is further limited by
such an enterprise purchasing and developing a facility on Earth Conservancy lands due to
Earth Conservancy’s concern about the sustainability of its purchasers’ business enterprises.
Non-Profit 501c.3 Corporation Ownership
The establishment of a non-profit corporation could be useful for the management of an ATV
trail facility. In its purest sense, this kind of arrangement would be ATV enthusiasts
providing a facility for ATV enthusiasts. As such, they would understand the needs and
desires of their own group, and be in the best position to respond appropriately. Further,
such an enterprise would be in the best position to benefit from involvement by the ATVing
community as enthusiasts would be more willing to contribute to the success of the
enterprise.
The non-profit corporation should be managed with profit generation in mind. The directors
or members of the non-profit corporation may not benefit from the profits of the corporation;
however such funds would be useful for facility sustainability and improvement.
There are benefits for a non-profit corporation. The group may be eligible for federal taxexempt status, as well as reduced postal rates. This reduction in postal rates would be a
benefit to a trail management corporation in communicating with, and perhaps educating, its
members. The non-profit corporation is eligible to receive public and private grants. This
could be particularly useful for land purchases and capital improvements.
The officers and members of a non-profit corporation enjoy limited liability protection, in
terms of the debts and liabilities of the corporation. Liabilities associated with non-profit
organizations such as relying on public support, or limited enticement for membership due to
no profit distribution, are not really applicable to the ATVing community. There is a large
40
Earth Conservancy
pool of persons with ATV-specific interest, who would desire membership is such an
organization. ATV users would provide a pool from which to draw volunteers for
enforcement and maintenance. If well-structured, oversight for these operations could be
paid positions, funded by the income from facility operations.
An example of non-profit management of an ATV trail facility is the Tower City Trail
Riders, Inc. (TCTRI) in Schuylkill County. The president of TCTRI has indicated that it
leases approximately 6,000 acres that it has developed into a full-service facility including
trails, challenge areas, and camping. The club has the responsibility of trail planning,
construction, maintenance, and enforcement. The club has generated a significant amount of
money in gross revenues in the six years since their inception, which pays their lease and
funds facility improvements. The good will generated between the club and its landowner
has allowed it to renew its lease for increasingly longer terms, solidifying the sustainability
of their enterprise.
A coalition of Luzerne County ATV clubs has formed called the Anthracite Regional Trail
System Coalition (ARTSC). This coalition represents more than 500 members from four
organizing clubs, which include Valley ATV Club, Pocono ATV Club, Black Diamond ATV
Club and Back Mountain Enduro Riders. At this time the coalition is in its foundational
stages and the particular legal form this coalition will take is yet to be established, but the
goal of the members is to pool their power and resources to create a viable entity for the
purpose of establishing and sustaining an ATV trail facility.
Luzerne County Ownership
ATV trails development could fall under the auspices of the County’s proposed Recreation
Commission. Luzerne County, along with neighboring Lackawanna County, has developed
an Open Space, Greenways and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan. This plan delineates both
Counties’ open space by ecological value and size, as well as proposing conservation areas.
In proposing conservation areas by type, the Plan is able to suggest appropriate recreational
uses at each of their designated open space areas. This Plan suggests off-road vehicle use at
several locations, with anticipated completion dates extending twenty years hence. However,
the document indicates that trails could be created on County land, and that trail management
and maintenance could be managed through the existing County administration, using
County maintenance forces.
Liability could be managed by reliance on Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use Statute, Title 68
if no usage fees are charged, consistent with the DCNR model. If usage fees were to be
charged, other arrangements to cover liability would be required. Enforcement on County
land could be handled through State and local police agencies. Funding of trails construction
and maintenance could be managed through grants form the DCNR, through the County
budget, and possibly usage fees, or fees for special events or programs.
One potential option is for the County to secure land for off-road vehicle use, then lease, or
otherwise make the land available to non-profit or other groups who would operate a trails
facility on behalf of the County. Such an arrangement could limit the County’s financial
41
Earth Conservancy
investment to the land purchase, while delegating trail construction and maintenance to those
with the most interest in the facility’s success. They could make significant use of volunteer
efforts, limiting costs. The liability / fees issues would remain the same, and enforcement
could still be conducted by local and State police agencies. If land for such an enterprise was
to be sold by EC, County ownership may satisfy its concern for sustainable ownership.
Ownership/Operational Alternatives Summary
EC owns land that could be used for the establishment of ATV trails. However, operating
such an enterprise is not within the mission of EC. Further, EC is concerned with the
sustainable development of the land in its charge, and will sell land to those developers or
other entities that propose enterprises it deems appropriate and sustainable. The
establishment of ATV trails on land under Earth Conservancy’s ownership is not an option.
The establishment of ATV trails on land presently owned by EC, but sold to an entity
interested in the establishment of trails is limited to the DCNR, Luzerne County, or a private
concern with a proven record of success and sustainability.
DCNR has established ATV trails on State Forest lands; however, existing trail operations
claim most of the registration fees and fines collected by the agency. The DCNR is able to
extend grants to other agencies or entities interested in establishing trail facilities. The
agency is presently reviewing trail locations across Pennsylvania, and if the DCNR does
become involved in establishing new trails, these would probably not be placed in the Lower
Wyoming Valley.
Private ownership requires an individual or group of sufficient means to purchase very large
parcels of land, and develop that land into a useful trail facility. If such an individual or
group could be found, their most reasonable recourse would be to operate the facility as a
business enterprise, requiring usage fees, and perhaps, memberships.
A 501c.3 Corporation, or other form of non-profit organization, could be established that
would manage an ATV trail facility. The ARTSC is presently forming with just such a
purpose in mind. Such a group would be able to marshal significant resources for such an
enterprise, such as volunteer effort, and community good-will. The largest obstacle for such
a group would be the acquisition of land, and options would include DCNR grants, a lease or
purchase agreement with a landowner, or a management agreement with a local government.
Luzerne County has already indicated interest in establishing off-road vehicle trails through
its Open Space, Greenways and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan, produced with
Lackawanna County. That document was published so recently that specific information
about construction and management of such facilities are not yet known. The County’s
willingness to establish trails and the absence of specific details how that will be
accomplished seem to leave open the possibility that an individual or group might suggest a
management arrangement that would be amenable to the County.
42
Earth Conservancy
Legal / Liability Issues
Pennsylvania has a Recreational Land Use Act entitled: Title 68: Real and Personal
Property, Chapter 11: Uses of Property, Section 477: Recreation Use of Land and Water,
Pennsylvania Recreational Use Statute. This Statute, referred to as Title 68, was enacted
because many Pennsylvania landowners would be willing to allow access to their lands for
recreational purposes, but have valid concerns over the issue of liability. The purpose of this
Statute is to encourage the opening of private land for recreational use by limiting the
liability of landowners.
Recreational purposes, according to the Statute, includes, but is not limited to, any of the
following or any combination of the following: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating,
camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, water sports, cave
exploration and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.
ATV riding is assumed to be an acceptable use not specifically mentioned in the list.
The Statute is intended to protect from liability landowners who allow access to their lands
for recreational purposes. The landowners are not required to prepare the land for
recreational use by removing nor ameliorating dangerous conditions, but neither are they
permitted to knowingly create dangerous conditions. Under the Statute landowners may not
charge a fee for recreational use of their land or rent the land to a group for their use to be
protected by the Statute. A lease to a governmental agency that manages the land is exempt
from the provisions of the Statute; that is, the landowner can still be held harmless despite the
lease (Pennsylvania Recreational Use Statute).
Possible limitations to the Statute include (Burghardt, 1996):
•
The definition of “Owner”, particularly if the entity with ownership is
a public entity, municipality, or easement holder
•
The definition of “Land”, which may be limited in definition by the
amount of development on the land in question
•
The definition of “Recreational”, which is usually intended to be
broad, but may be limited by the locales in which an activity may be
pursued, such as “outside.”
•
Injury to a minor
•
Conflict with “Attractive Nuisance” doctrines
This list of possible limitations is drawn from a discussion on the International Mountain
Bicycling Association (IMBA) Internet Site of limitations to State Recreational Statutes in
general, and not necessarily problems in Pennsylvania, specifically. The IMBA has similar
concerns for finding legal trail riding sites as does the ATVing community. Their discussion
of State Recreational Statutes is useful, not as a definitive source of legal information, but
rather as a means of raising awareness of the complexities of the Recreational Statute(s).
Specific legal questions about Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use Statute should be directed to
the State Attorney General, a Municipal Attorney or private counsel.
43
Earth Conservancy
Insurance
If a facility operator chooses to charge a fee for the use of their facility, they essentially
waive protection under Title 68, requiring liability protection under some kind of private
insurance. Several ATV trail facilities were contacted for this study for the purpose of
learning how they managed their liability. Several club officials indicated that user /
members are expected to carry individual liability insurance on themselves and their
equipment. The for-profit businesses carry liability insurance on their businesses. Some
businesses researched conduct competitive events on their premises, which carry
significantly higher premiums than non-competitive use coverage.
Clubs without land do not carry insurance. Clubs that lease land do carry general liability
insurance. The payment of fees to a landowner by users for the recreational use of land
removes a landowner from liability protection under the PA Recreational Use Statute,
necessitating the purchase of commercial liability insurance. The cost of commercial
liability protection can vary widely depending upon numerous factors, not the least of which
is the intended use and behavior of the users. The TCTRI pays more than $12,000 each year
for general commercial liability protection for their members’ use of 6,000 acres they lease.
However, if they held or allowed competitive motorsport events on their property, they
believe their premium would increase to approximately $100,000.
Legal/Liability Issues Summary
Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use Statute (Title 68) was enacted to encourage land owners in
the Commonwealth to allow outdoor recreational use of their properties without undue
concern for liability issues. The Statute exempts from liability those land owners that permit
recreational use of their properties, and do not create hazards on the land or charge a fee for
the use of their land. This Statute may help some land owners decide to allow ATV riding on
their properties. However, there is still concern among some land owners whether the Title
68 Statute is sufficient to fully protect a land owner from liability, particularly regarding
ATV riding, which is perceived to be a dangerous activity.
The insurance industry recommends land owners purchase insurance specifically covering
ATV use before they allow the activity on their lands. This kind of coverage comes at a cost,
effectively preventing some land owners from making the purchase, and subsequently
permitting ATV riding. The ATV community argues that general liability insurance, which
most land owners carry as a matter of course, along with the Title 68 Statute, is sufficient to
cover ATV use. Landowners, who ultimately bear the costs of their decisions, are left to
decide between the advice of their insurance agents, and that of those wishing to use their
land.
However, the Title 68 Statute does make permitting ATV use of land more feasible where it
may not have been previously feasible. In terms of ATV use of Earth Conservancy property,
its insurance carrier does not permit ATV use on its property. As long as Earth Conservancy
owns a given parcel of land, ATV use on that land will remain illegal. When ownership of
44
Earth Conservancy
EC properties are transferred to other parties, those new owners may have other opportunities
for insurance options.
45
Earth Conservancy
Enforcement Issues
Facility operators charged with managing the use of land, and paying the premiums for
insurance coverage must, by virtue of the financial strain, reduce all possible risk by policing
the use of their land. Such policing includes controlling user behavior, which leads to an
important aspect of enforcement; control of the persons entering upon the land. Operators
that effectively control access to the land are able to require awareness of acceptable
behavior, exposure to rules and regulations, and user training, if available. Training is
particularly useful for new or young riders, further increasing safety and reducing risk.
Ultimately the goal is to operate a facility where users feel safe and are able to focus on their
recreational activity without undue focus on possible risks.
Trespassing
Users entering the land without benefit of the appropriate entry process (membership, user
fees, awareness of regulations, and training) pose a risk to the intentions of the land managers
because these users lack the benefit of exposure to rules and regulations, and the expectations
of the landowners. Enforcement then takes on another aspect; that of limiting entry to the
property.
Due largely to the size of trail-riding facilities (some in the thousands of acres), effective
perimeter controls are nearly impossible to facilitate. Blocking trails at property lines is of
limited value because off-road vehicles are, by their nature, not limited to trails. Continuous
perimeter controls, such as fencing, are cost prohibitive. Essentially, outsiders cannot be
prevented from entering the grounds of a facility. However, several facility managers in
Pennsylvania are limiting access to their grounds by the use of visual cues in the form of
wristbands or helmet stickers that indicate users who belong on the grounds. Users without
the appropriate visual cue(s) are immediately identifiable as trespassers.
Visual membership cues such as helmet stickers that contain numbers are also useful for
enforcement of proper behavior by users who belong on the grounds of the facility. Users
demonstrating inappropriate behavior are identifiable by their displayed number, and
sanctions may be imposed.
The TCTRI, an example of a 501c.3 Corporation operating a facility, uses stickers affixed to
the helmets of their members for identifying members, trespassers by the absence of the
stickers, and provides a means for identifying rule-breakers. Paragon, an example of
commercial enterprise operating a facility, uses wristbands to identify patron/members, and
trespassers by the absence of wristbands. Users of State / Federal Trail facilities must have a
registration plate attached to their machines, which readily identify properly registered users,
as well as providing a means of identifying rule-breakers by the numbers on the plate.
In all three examples, legitimate users are encouraged to report trespassers to facility officers
and/or local law enforcement for removal and prosecution. In the case of the State or Federal
Forest, trespassers and other deviant behavior may be reported to Forest Rangers, who are the
46
Earth Conservancy
appropriate authority on those lands. In all three examples, legitimate users are the eyes and
ears of those in authority, providing the first line of enforcement on those lands.
Off-Trail Riding
Users riding off-trail pose risks to the environment as well as themselves. While trail
locations may be intended to provide a certain riding experience, (i.e. challenging to
advanced riders, easy for new riders) trail locations may also be selected to avoid
environmentally sensitive areas or hazards to riders. A full-service facility must provide a
range of challenges for its users so that their users do not become bored with the trail system
and ride off-trail in search of new and exciting riding experiences.
Enforcement of appropriate trail use should consist of education and reporting. An entry
process that includes awareness of rules and regulations, and training, should contain an
educational component about off-trail prohibitions. A means of user identification such as
helmet stickers would simplify reporting and enforcement.
Out of Bounds Riding
Users riding out-of-bounds can create
different issues for the landowner, but
may be avoided using means similar
to off-trail riding enforcement. Riding
out-of-bounds can encroach on the
good will of adjoining landowners and
present a risk to riders and the
environment because trails on an
adjoining property may be trails of
opportunity rather that well-planned
trails avoiding environmental hazards.
Again, user entry through an appropriate process can educate riders about trail limits. This
combined with well-marked trails, including trail limits, will suffice for most riders. A
means of user identification such as helmet stickers would simplify reporting and
enforcement.
Noise
Anecdotal evidence gathered from newspaper articles published in Luzerne County about
ATV use suggests that noise is among the foremost complaints by non-ATV riders about
ATVs. The Federal government, the Commonwealth, and the Motorcycle Industry Council
all have statutes limiting the level of sound made by motorcycles and ATVs. Decibel is a
numerical expression of the relative loudness of a sound. Sound energy dissipates with
distance, so statutes describe acceptable sound levels at a given distance, which is
consistently 20 inches. These two measures give the maximum acceptable relative sound
level at a given distance as allowed by the statutes.
47
Earth Conservancy
Both the Federal Statute and Commonwealth Statute limit acceptable noise from motorcycle
engines at 99 decibels at 20 inches. The Motorcycle Industry Council limits acceptable noise
at 96 decibels at 20 inches. An unmodified machine that meets the Motorcycle Industry
Council standard will meet both government standards. A machine that is modified may still
meet the government standards, depending upon the modification (s) to the engine. The
noise issue most likely is not about the machines themselves, which typically meet current
standards, but rather their distance from persons not involved in their use.
Important to ATV trail facility development is placing trails and challenge areas sufficient
distances from residences so that the noise from the machines does not impact nearby
residences. If a trail or challenge area must be located near residences, appropriate noise
barriers should be constructed. These barriers may be walls, mounds of dirt, and plantings.
In any case, whether a trail is sufficient distance from residences, or near but protected by an
appropriate barrier, ATV users must be aware of low-noise areas and their respect for such
areas must be enforced.
Vandalism
ATV riders who are committed to an organization that maintains a good facility will
probably not commit acts of vandalism toward the organization. Destructive behavior is
more likely perpetrated by persons who feel unjustly excluded from a facility. To curb the
risk of vandalism, the TCTRI extends a discounted membership rate to local off-road vehicle
users and adjoining property owners. Local riders pose an interesting challenge. Due to their
proximity to the trail facilities, the ease of entry (through unsecured perimeters), their
knowledge of the area (trails through adjoining properties), and their presence, local riders
may feel a sense of belonging without engaging a facility operator’s established method of
entry. If subsequently removed as trespassers, they may feel unjustly disposed, and their
presence makes them a risk for illicit activities toward the land managers, including
vandalism. By offering a discounted rate for membership, the TCTRI extends good will
toward its neighbors. By joining the organization, local riders are included in the appropriate
entry process, including education and training, and hopefully submit themselves to
enforcement within the confines of the facility.
Enforcement Issues Summary
The operator of an ATV facility must manage risk. Risk management necessarily means
controlling the behavior of the persons using the land. Riders who enter the land through the
approved process will be aware of expected behavior, environmental hazards, and may
participate in training, if available. Persons who enter the land without the benefit of an
approved process place themselves, other riders, and the environment at risk because of their
ignorance of expectations and hazards. Enforcement includes not only controlling the
behavior of those using the land, but controlling access to the land.
The size of an ATV trail facility makes perimeter control nearly impossible. The costs of
fencing are too high. Barriers placed on trails at perimeter lines are not useful because ATVs
48
Earth Conservancy
are particularly adept at off-trail travel. The reality is that persons who do not belong on land
useful for ATV use will enter the land. Enforcement, then takes on a different dimension;
instead of trespass control, enforcement become trespass remediation. The first step in
removing trespassers is their identification. The best way to do that is to mark, in some way,
users who belong. Those users without the appropriate visual identification are trespassers.
The costs of a sufficient enforcement staff to patrol a large ATV facility are prohibitive, so
the eyes and ears of a modest enforcement staff is the membership. As members or patrons
enjoy a facility, they may meet or see other members or patrons behave inappropriately, or
meet or see persons using the facility without the membership marker. These offending
persons should be reported to officials or members of an enforcement staff, who may then
take appropriate action to remove them, if trespassers, or correct their behavior if they
belong.
Off-trail riding poses a risk to the environment as well as to ATV riders. Risk to the
environment exists if riders disturb wetlands, or protected flora or fauna habitat areas. These
may be hidden by brush, or be otherwise hidden from the untrained eye. Hazards to ATV
riders may also be hidden by brush and foliage.
Similarly, riding out-of-bounds can pose the same hazards, as well as add the problems
associated with trespassing on another property. Enforcement for both these violations is
best handled similarly to the enforcement of trespassing; members or patrons observing and
reporting such behavior to officials or enforcement staff, who then corrects the problem.
The sounds made by motorcycle engine powered vehicles is often unpleasant to the ears of
those person not involved or interested in the activity, particularly if those persons are at
home. Motorcycle Industry Council standards for noise are more stringent than Pennsylvania
or Federal government standards, so unmodified ATVs in good working condition will
typically meet government noise limitations. ATV facility planners and operators need to be
sensitive to the proximity of their facilities to residences, and take appropriate measures to
construct noise barriers, use space as a noise barrier, or establish low-noise areas where space
is limited, to reduce the noise that reaches nearby residences.
49
Earth Conservancy
Case Studies
Several clubs organized around ATV use, as well as businesses catering to off-road vehicle
motorsport were researched to offer an understanding of the breadth of options available to
ATV users for camaraderie and riding opportunities. The focus and facilities available to the
clubs and businesses presented here are diverse, and the list is by no means exhaustive.
These are presented to offer models of types of clubs and businesses as a guide to what are
possible ways to serve the ATV community.
ATV Traction, Inc. is a non-profit ATV club located in Northwestern Pennsylvania. This
club exists for camaraderie among ATV riders, and to secure riding opportunities for their
membership. The club does not own land, but has the use of a seven-mile portion of an
abandoned PA Railroad line in Erie County. Club members know, or are, private
landowners, giving permission for ATV use. The club’s membership works to persuade
owners of adjoining properties to allow ATV use for the purpose of connecting trails.
ATV Traction, Inc. suggests the PA Recreational Use Statute, Title 68 along with general
liability coverage, sufficiently covers landowners’ liability needs. Their representative
believes liability coverage that specifically addresses ATV use is redundant; that the general
liability coverage carried by most landowners is sufficient.
Like ATV Traction, Inc., a primary focus of many clubs is finding legal riding venues, so
several businesses that offer ATV riding opportunities were researched to understand the
kinds of commercial riding facilities available. Paragon Adventure Park is a for-profit
facility providing trail riding use of a 15,000 acres land resource. Paragon’s liability
management requires that facility users sign a liability waiver, and pay a user fee. The
business carries liability insurance. ATV riders at Paragon wear wristbands. Users identify
trespassers by the absence of the wristband and trespassers are reported to authorities and
arrested.
Rausch Creek Motorsports Park is a for-profit business. This is a land use club that offers
off-road vehicle racing and trail riding. Rausch Creek has a racetrack and 650 acres of trails.
The business carries liability insurance (assumed); users pay a membership fee, as well as an
additional user fee at each visit to the facility. Users sign a liability waiver, and entrance and
use of the facility are overseen by officials.
Wolfmann’s Motocross, LLC is a for-profit business. This is a land use club that provides
off-road racing use of their land resource. Their facility is essentially a racetrack. The
business carries liability insurance (assumed); users pay a membership fee and an additional
user fee at each visit to the facility. Entrance and use of the facility are overseen by officials.
This facility caters more to motorcycle racing, although they do offer racing opportunities for
ATV racers. Its appeal is limited to ATV owners interested in racing.
Plumcreek Valley MC Park is a for-profit business that provides off-road racing use of land
resource. Like Wolfmann’s Motocross, LLC, their facility is essentially a racetrack. The
business carries liability insurance (assumed); users pay a membership fee and an additional
50
Earth Conservancy
user fee at each visit to the facility. Entrance and use are overseen by officials. This facility
caters more to motorcycle racing, although they do offer racing opportunities for ATV racers.
Its appeal is limited to ATV owners interested in racing.
Tower City Trail Riders, Inc. (TCTRI) is a non-profit club located in Schuylkill County. The
club has approximately 2,000 dues-paying members. The president of the club, who is also a
founding member, indicates that the club was organized for the purpose of controlling riders
on the approximately 6,000 acres it now leases from the owners of Rausch Creek
Motorsports. The organization carries general commercial liability insurance to cover the
activities of its members on the leased land. This insurance coverage does not permit
competitive events. The organization’s insurance costs approximately $12,000 per year. The
president of the club believes the cost would be $100,000 per year if competitive events were
permitted.
TCTRI requires its members, both minors and adults, to sign a waiver, and members wear a
helmet sticker to identify them as such. Trespassers are identifiable by their lack of a valid
helmet sticker and rule-breaking members are identified by the numbers on their helmet
stickers. Rule-breaking members lose membership and non-member trespassers are reported
to appropriate authorities and removed.
TCTRI offers not only extensive trail riding opportunities to its members, but also camping.
In fact, some members have constructed permanent camping structures on the grounds. To
service their members’ needs, the club is installing utilities to service the camping area,
increasing its appeal and making it a premier family outdoor facility.
TCTRI’s lease fee is a percentage of all club fees derived from membership fees, camping
fees, and structure fees. Their president (one of TCTRI’s several founding members)
believes that commitment on the part of the membership is key to successful relationships
within the club and between the club and its landowner.
Case Studies Summary
Numerous ATV clubs, organized to provide camaraderie among persons of similar interests,
exist across Pennsylvania. ATV Traction, Inc., in Northwestern Pennsylvania, is one of
those. This club is typical in that among their operational priorities is the search for legal
riding opportunities. ATV Traction’s present arrangement is to persuade land owners to
allow ATV use of their land. Their hope is to gain permission to ride on enough land parcels
that an interconnecting system of trails might be developed.
A number of commercial facilities are extant in Pennsylvania, among them Paragon
Adventure Park, Rausch Creek Motorsports Park, Wolfmann’s Motocross, LLC, and
Plumcreek Valley MC Park. These facilities offer a range of services from extensive trail
riding opportunities at Paragon Adventure Park, to motorcycle and ATV racing at
Wolfmann’s Motocross, LLC and Plumcreek Valley MC Park. These facilities are operated
for profit, and require memberships, as well as user fees at the time of each entrance.
51
Earth Conservancy
Tower City Trail Riders, Inc. is a non-profit club that was organized specifically to control
illegal riding on a certain parcel of land, and establish good-will with a particular land owner.
The organization now leases approximately 6,000 acres from that land owner, and is in the
process of developing a premier family-oriented trail riding and camping facility for its
members. TCTRI represents a good model of what is possible with a membership committed
to the values of the organization and good will toward its land owner.
52
Earth Conservancy
Final Summary
All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) riding is an increasingly popular sport. Sales and registrations of
the machines continue to climb in Pennsylvania. However, the popularity of the sport has
outpaced the development of appropriate facilities for legal use of ATVs, resulting in illegal
riding where ATV users are not permitted to ride. The expanse of undeveloped land in the
Lower Wyoming Valley, consisting of abandoned coal mining operations and the forestation
surrounding them, draws ATV users because such terrain offers precisely the characteristics
desired by them: the abandoned coal mining operations offer challenges to riding that ATV
users find enjoyable; and the forested areas of the County, particularly near the Susquehanna
River, offer trail riding and vistas unmatched in the region. The rub is that ATV riding on
privately owned land, without appropriate legal arrangements, is illegal.
Sales statistics available for the period January through June of 2002 published by the Dealer
News, an industry periodical, indicate that ATV sales in Pennsylvania numbered 34,870 units
for the six-month period. This sales figure places Pennsylvania fourth in the US in terms of
ATV sales, following California, New York and Texas (PA Atving.com, 2004), in that order.
All ATVs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are required to be registered with the
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). ATVs which are intended for
use only on their owner’s property are registered as ‘Limited,’ while all other registered
ATVs are registered as ‘Active.’ As of March 1, 2004, the DCNR listed 4,875 registered
ATVs (Active Vehicles) in Luzerne County. This number does not include the vehicles
registered as Limited (confined to the property of the owner) or unregistered vehicles.
Again, while the number of unregistered ATVs appears to be significant, there is no reliable
method to quantify these vehicles.
DCNR lists six summer trails and five summer / winter trails on its website. With six
summer trails and five summer/winter trails available on state forest property, ATV
enthusiasts have available 229.2 miles of trail in the summer and 131.1 miles in the winter
for their enjoyment (DCNR Internet Site, accessed 1/26/2004). DCNR trails are located
throughout Pennsylvania, with none in Luzerne County. The Federal Forestry Service makes
four trails available for ATV riding in the Allegheny National Forest, for a total of 106 miles.
The Allegheny National Forest is located in northwest Pennsylvania, so none of these trails
are either in, or near, the Lower Wyoming Valley.
As a way of simplifying the complexity of the larger issue of establishing an ATV facility in
the Lower Wyoming Valley along with its many side issues, and to organize the data
collected, criteria were established that when taken together would articulate whether the
establishment of an ATV facility in the Lower Wyoming Valley is feasible. These criteria
are as follows:
•
Need, defined by a comparison between the numbers of ATVs and the
places to ride them;
53
Earth Conservancy
•
•
•
•
•
Financial Sustainability, defined by a comparison between the
estimated expenses and the estimated revenues associated with
establishing and operating an ATV facility;
Estimated regional economic impact;
Conceptual locations, including consideration of environmental issues,
existing and planned land uses, soils, access, and potential for trailhead
facilities such as parking;
Ownership alternatives;
Operational alternatives.
These criteria represent an overview of the issues explored in this study, as well as a
framework upon which an argument for, or against, the feasibility of establishing an ATV
facility might be built.
The process of developing the study revealed an additional element worthy of inclusion and
that is the presence of a group of people committed to the work of establishing an ATV
facility.
Clearly, the numbers of ATVs outpace the available opportunities to ride them. To better
understand the issues and how it might help ameliorate the situation, Earth Conservancy
commissioned this feasibility study and concurrently convened a steering committee. The
purpose of the steering committee is to provide an open forum for face-to-face discussion
among stakeholders about the feasibility of establishing ATV trails in Luzerne County, and
to facilitate the development and completion of this feasibility study. The steering committee
is comprised of representatives from state and local governments, public utilities, ATV clubs
and special interest groups, and an ATV dealer.
The issues identified by the steering committee as matters of concern are: the increase of
illegal ATV riding on Earth Conservancy land and State Game lands, as well as other private
property near residential areas and on public streets; the desire of the Luzerne County ATV
community to find legal riding venues; possible ATV facility ownership and operational
alternatives in Luzerne County and; possible property areas for development as an ATV
The single largest expense in establishing an ATV trail facility is the land. Associated
expenses are significant, though, and include trail design, environmental permitting,
construction, operations, and maintenance. However, these costs can be manageable when
balanced against possible revenues available to the operators of a successful facility.
Possible revenues include usage fees, grants (for land purchases and physical plant
development), proceeds from special events, fees from training programs, profits from
renting storage facilities, and one of the most significant – volunteers.
A successful facility can do more than sustain itself. A successful facility can attract
enthusiasts from beyond its own region, infusing the area with tourism dollars. Studies from
around the US have shown that ATV enthusiasts enjoy a sport that can be expensive. The
sport requires not only the costs of the machines and their maintenance, but also requires the
54
Earth Conservancy
ability to transport the machines, operating costs, insurance and registration, specialized
clothing and safety gear, and travel expenses. Some of these costs are necessarily spent near
the enthusiasts’ homes; however some of these costs are spent nearer the facility where the
sport is enjoyed.
As mentioned, Luzerne County has the fourth highest ATV registration in the
Commonwealth. Not only is Luzerne County home to many ATV enthusiasts, but the
region’s proximity to significant population centers such as New York City, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh, as well as other significant regional centers
such as Allentown, Erie, and Harrisburg place Luzerne County in a unique position to attract
significant tourism dollars. The beauty of the Northeast Pennsylvania region, as well as the
popularity of ATVing beyond rural and small-town areas, suggest that a significant ATV
facility in Luzerne County could be well-placed for attracting some of the available tourism
dollars.
Several ATV facility ownership alternatives were explored, including Earth Conservancy
ownership, DCNR ownership, Luzerne County ownership, private individual or group
ownership, and non-profit organization ownership. Earth Conservancy ownership is not
possible and DCNR ownership is not likely, leaving County, private, or non-profit
organization ownership as viable facility ownership possibilities.
Private ownership requires an individual or group of sufficient means to purchase very large
parcels of land, and develop that land into a useful trail facility. If such an individual or
group could be found, their most reasonable recourse would be to operate the facility as a
business enterprise, requiring usage fees, and perhaps, memberships.
A 501c.3 Corporation, or other form of non-profit organization, could be established that
would manage an ATV trail facility. The Anthracite Regional Trail System Coalition is
presently forming with just such a purpose in mind. Such a group would be able to marshal
significant resources for such an enterprise, such as volunteer effort, and community goodwill. The largest obstacle for such a group would be the acquisition of land, and options
would include DCNR grants, a lease or purchase agreement with a landowner, or a
management agreement with a local government.
Luzerne County has already indicated interest in establishing off-road vehicle trails through
their Open Space, Greenways and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan, produced in
collaboration with Lackawanna County. That document was published so recently that
specific information about construction and management of such facilities are not yet known.
The County’s willingness to establish trails and the absence of specific details how that will
be accomplished seem to leave open the possibility that an individual or group might suggest
a management arrangement that would be amenable to the County.
Several areas within Luzerne County were explored for possible ATV facility placement. An
area north of the Susquehanna River in Plymouth Township, extending from Plymouth to
Moon Lake was determined to have too many obstacles to ATV facility placement due to
smaller, disjointed parcels of available land, poor opportunities for connection between
55
Earth Conservancy
parcels, and an absence of local government support. An area south of the Susquehanna
River in Newport Township, extending from Nanticoke to Glen Lyon was determined to be a
good location for the placement of an ATV facility because of larger, more open tracts of
land, terrain desired by ATV riders, and local government interest.
Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use Statute (Title 68) was enacted to encourage land owners in
the Commonwealth to allow outdoor recreational use of their properties without undue
concern for liability issues. The Statute exempts from liability those land owners that permit
recreational use of their properties, and do not create hazards on the land or charge a fee for
the use of their land. This Statute may help some land owners decide to allow ATV riding on
their properties. However, there is still concern among some land owners whether the Title
68 Statute is sufficient to fully protect a land owner from liability, particularly regarding
ATV riding, which is perceived to be a dangerous activity.
Numerous ATV clubs, organized to provide camaraderie among persons of similar interests,
exist across Pennsylvania. ATV Traction, Inc., in Northwestern Pennsylvania, is one of
those. This club is typical in that among their operational priorities is the search for legal
riding opportunities. ATV Traction’s present arrangement is to persuade land owners to
allow ATV use of their land. Their hope is to gain permission to ride on enough land parcels
that an interconnecting system of trails might be developed.
There are a number of commercial facilities in Pennsylvania, among them Paragon
Adventure Park, Rausch Creek Motorsports Park, Wolfmann’s Motocross, LLC, and
Plumcreek Valley MC Park. These facilities offer a range of services from extensive trail
riding opportunities at Paragon Adventure Park, to motorcycle and ATV racing at
Wolfmann’s Motocross, LLC and Plumcreek Valley MC Park. These facilities are operated
for profit, and require memberships, as well as user fees at the time of each entrance.
Tower City Trail Riders, Inc. is a non-profit club that was organized specifically to control
illegal riding on a certain parcel of land, and establish good-will with a particular land owner.
The organization now leases approximately 6,000 acres from that land owner, and is in the
process of developing a premier family-oriented trail riding and camping facility for its
members. TCTRI represents a good model of what is possible with a membership committed
to the values of the organization and good will toward its land owner.
The TCTRI model demonstrates that establishing and maintaining a significant ATV trail
riding facility is feasible. As with any business enterprise, success depends upon the
presence of several important factors including commitment of persons or an organization to
the success of the enterprise, the availability of sufficient land resources, a need for the
enterprise beyond the desires of the committed persons, and acceptance of the local
community. The success of the establishment and maintenance of an ATV trail riding
facility in the Lower Wyoming Valley would depend upon the presence of these same
factors.
There is a need for an ATV trail facility in the Lower Wyoming Valley as evidenced by the
number of ATV registrations and the amount of riding activity, much of which is presently
56
Earth Conservancy
illegal because legal riding areas are not geographically convenient. A group of persons
committed to establishing a facility has risen from the ATVing community in the Lower
Wyoming Valley, evidenced by their participation in the steering committee associated with
this study, their commitment to their communities through their volunteer efforts, and their
organization and intent to incorporate with ATV facility establishment and management as
their goal.
Further evidence of the feasibility of establishing an ATV trail riding facility in the Lower
Wyoming Valley is the amount of open land that is suitable for the purpose. At this point
ownership of the land is an impediment to the establishment of an ATV trail facility, but this
is not an untenable impediment. Local government interest, particularly Luzerne County
interest, as well as an accommodating attitude on the part of Newport Township could be
helpful with the ownership issue.
If a facility of sufficient size and services could be established, economic sustainability
seems possible. Significant facilities offering a range of services are still unique, and should
be able to draw users from other geographical regions, bringing dollars not only to the ATV
facility, but the communities of the region as well.
Perhaps the most significant factor is the commitment and good-will of the people seeking
the establishment of a facility. The president of the TCTRI, who is also one of its founding
members, could not emphasize enough the importance, in his opinion, of commitment and
good-will on the part of the leaders of the movement to establish their facility. Through the
course of this study, the leaders of the ATVing community in the Lower Wyoming Valley
have recognized that they must take the lead in working toward their goal. This is a
significant step in the development of the level of commitment emphasized by the president
of the TCTRI. Their efforts, combined with the need, resources, local government
agreement, and proximity of the Lower Wyoming Valley to an extended ATVing population,
suggest that the establishment of an ATV trail facility in the Lower Wyoming Valley is
feasible.
57
Earth Conservancy
References
Adams, B. (2004, March 4). Equipment Center, conservancy property hit. Times Leader.
Allegheny National Forest. (n.d.). Retrieved November 3, 2004, from
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/
ATV Sound Level Requirements. (n.d.). The Pennsylvania Code. Retrieved November 3,
2004, from http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/017/chapter51/s51.92.html
ATV Traction Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved June 14, 2004, from http://www.atvtraction.org
Black Diamond ATV Club. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2003 from
http://www.bdatv.com
Burghardt, T. 1996. Landowner Liability. International Mountain Bicycling Association.
Retrieved January 30, 2004 from
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/land_liability.html
Cambria County Conservation and Recreation Authority. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2004,
from http://www.co.cambria.pa.us/cambria/cwp/
Danger of kids on ATVs needs to be addressed. (2003, November 20). Times Leader.
Dealer News (n.d.). (as cited in PA Atving.com.). Retrieved July 12, 2004, from
http://www.paatving.com
Delaware: 2000. Census 2000 Profile. (2002). U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics
and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved June 22, 2004 from
http://www.census.gov
The family and the environment. (1999). The Recreational Roundtable. Roper Starch
Worldwide, Outdoor Recreation America (as cited in Fogg, G. E. 2002).
Fogg, G. E. (2002). Park Guidelines for Off-highway Vehicles. National Off-highway
Vehicle Conservation Council.
Hatfield-McCoy – Trails Heaven: West Virginia ATV & Motorcycle Trail Rides. (n.d.).
Retrieved November 3, 2004, from http://www.trailsheaven.com/
Jack Frost & Big Boulder (n.d.). Retrieved November 3, 2004, from
http://www.big2resorts.com/summer-motorcross.asp
Kalinowski, R. (2004, April 27). ATV club helps in search, recovery effort. The Citizens’
Voice.
58
Earth Conservancy
Kopec. (2003, November 16). Many ATV riders find fun in safety. Times Leader.
Legislators eye ex-mine lands for recreation. (2003, November 18). The Citizens’ Voice.
Lieback, R. (2003, June 11). Sugar Notch Council makes ATV riding illegal. Times
Leader.
Marcy. (2003, November 16). Former mine lands are seen as solution to make all happy.
Times Leader.
Maryland: 2000. Census 2000 Profile. (2002). U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics
McNarney, M. (2003, October 20). Teen seriously hurt in ATV crash. Times Leader.
Morgan-Besecker, T. (2003, October 5). A family’s tragedy on 4 wheels. Times Leader.
National Register of Historic Places. National Register Information System. Retrieved April
1, 2004, from http://www.nr.nps.gov/
New Jersey: 2000. Census 2000 Profile. (2002). U.S. Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved June 22,
2004 from http://www.census.gov
New York: 2000. Census 2000 Profile. (2002). U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics
Okrant, M. J., Goss, L. E. (2004). The impact of spending by ATV/Trailbike travel parties on
New Hampshire’s economy during July 2002 to June 2003. Plymouth state
University: The Institute for New Hampshire Studies.
Open Space, Greenways and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan. (2004). Lackawanna and
Luzerne Counties.
PA Atving.com. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://www.paatving.com
Paragon Adventure Park. (n.d.). Retrieved June 14, 2004, from http://www.paragonap.com/
Pennsylvania: 2000. Census 2000 Profile. (2002). U.S. Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved June 22,
2004 from http://www.census.gov
59
Earth Conservancy
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry, Allterrain Vehicles. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2003, from
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/atv/atvtindex.asp
Pennsylvania Recreational Use Statute. (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2004, from
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/resources/repository/Pennsylvania_Recreational
_Use_Statute.htm
Pennsylvania Trail Design Manual for Off-highway Recreational Vehicles. (2003). Larson
Design Group, Inc.
Plumcreek Valley MX Park. (n.d.) Retrieved June 22, 2004, from
http://www.plumcreekvalleymxpark.com/
Rausch Creek Motorsports Park. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2004, from
http://www.rauschcreekracing.com/rcmp/
Roth, L. (2003, October 16). Riding the rails is the fast track to danger. Times Leader.
Roth, L. (2003, November 16). Road to trouble: Freewheeling ATV riders irk residents,
area police. Times Leader.
Skrapits, E. (2004, February 4). Jackson Township mulls law to regulate ATVs. The
Citizens’ Voice.
Smith, G. (2003, November 16). Game lands magnet for illegal riders. Times Leader.
Soil Survey of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. (1974). National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Tower City Trail Riders Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2004, from
http://www.towercitytrailriders.org
Venesky, T. (2003, August 11). Feasibility study to determine viability of ATV facility.
The Citizens’ Voice.
Venesky, T. (2004, March 28). Unwanted ATV riders: Number of vehicles in NE PA
continues to climb despite few avenues for travel. The Citizens’ Voice.
Wolfmann’s Motocross, LLC. (n.d.) Retrieved June 22, 2004, from
http://www.wolfsmoto.com
Young, B. M. (n.d.). Forming a 501c(3) Non-profit Corporation. The George Washington
University School of Business. Retrieved January 22, 2004, from
http://www.sbpm.gwu.edu/casb/Research109.htm .
60
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
STEERING COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
November 19, 2003
Page 1
Meeting Minutes
MEMORANDUM
Date:
November 18, 2003, 3:00 P.M.
Subject:
Earth Conservancy
ATV Feasibility Study
Steering Committee Meeting
Location:
Earth Conservancy
Ashley, PA
Attendees:
Attendance list is attached.
A steering committee meeting was held to discuss the ATV Feasibility Study being undertaken by
Earth Conservancy. Background on this topic was provided, potential goals, objectives and future
actions were discussed.
BACKGROUND
Michael Dziak gave the welcoming remarks regarding Earth Conservancy’s role in the ATV
Feasibility Study. Earth Conservancy has numerous parcels of land throughout Luzerne County.
The long-term goal of this organization is to develop land holdings into sustainable programs and
grant ownership of these parcels to private/public owners to control. An ATV park/trail system is a
possibility for some of the land use. This meeting was held with the Steering Committee in order to
decide if this alternative is viable.
Earth Conservancy hired Pennoni Associates Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to explore the
potential for and ATV park or trail system in the Wyoming Valley. Mr. Dziak introduced Steven
Barber of Pennoni Associates Inc. who presented a power point presentation outlining the issues to
be addressed throughout the feasibility study.
FEASIBILITY
The presentation began by stating the purpose of the study, which is to identify the land available,
owners, maintenance issues and liability concerns. The potential problem areas were conveyed first,
including property ownership, insurance costs, safety concerns and environmental impacts.
Economic concerns, maintenance and policing are also potential problem areas. Mr. Barber passed
out a spreadsheet listing existing ATV parks including information on their owners, operations,
enforcement and fees.
TRAIL SYSTEM
The actual trail characteristics were explained as to the difference between the trail/track
designations. A trail would consist of a long, permanent pathway for ATV use. A track would be
November 19, 2003
Page 2
Meeting Minutes
separated into beginner, intermediate and advance courses with jumps or specialty features. A track
could possibly be reconfigured so to keep the interest in riding at the location. Some believe that if
the park is built consisting on only trails, then the local people would not participate because they
would want to see more tracks, leading to more illegal riding because the proposed system would not
suit the public’s interest. A network of trails connecting numerous tracks was an alternative
mentioned. This system would encompass many landowners and easements.
Earth Conservancy land could possibly be used as a link to get through the trail system. Earth
Conservancy parcels are separated many numerous private landowners. Theses owners would have
to agree to easements through their property or rights-of-way acquisitions.
Various examples of property available for the ATV usage might be DNCR, PA Game Commission,
State Forests and local municipalities.
Trail systems maintained by individual clubs was an alternative discussed. A coalition would be set
up to own the property. If this coalition were a non-profit organization, there may be more
opportunities for grants and funding. This would create a responsible body in charge of a definite
length of trail or trail system. This coalition would be in charge of the policing, maintenance and
ownership of the system.
OPERATIONS
The represented ATV clubs believe that once a trail system is initiated, the majority of illegal ATV
riding will stop. Designated areas for mud holes and play areas would help control and police the
system because they will have legal areas to do such activities. ATV club riders do not want to
jeopardize their registrations or rights to participate in legal systems by doing something illegal or
damaging. Club members stated that by setting guidelines and educating riders of these rules would
help enforce them.
A suggestion was made to make it mandatory for all ATV riders to join some sort of organized club,
which, in turn, would police the areas themselves and report back to the proper authorities if any
occasions arise.
FUNDING
The following suggestions were made:
A discussion was held about using a percentage of the ATV registration fees as a source of funding
for any planned project. As there are such a large numbers of registered ATV riders in the state
(approx. 400,000), this option appeared viable to committee members. Several of the committee
members have been working with DCNR to identify actual expenditures of their registration fees.
The actual fees for using the park once it is operational depend on the owners of the park. Most club
riders pay a yearly fee for the park usage. Out of town riders, visiting for a few days, could possibly
purchase a pass for the day(s) they would use the trails.
There are DCNR funds available to support the development and creation of parks/tracks/trail
systems. In order to obtain funding potential trails and park space would need to be identified,
November 19, 2003
Page 3
Meeting Minutes
property owners would have to be in agreement, maintenance issues would need to be explored and
resolved and liability issues addressed.
Local businesses could possibly contribute to a portion of the funding needed to construct a park of
this kind. However, executing such a project will require significant funding, which will have to
come through grants.
The public would feel more supportive of a park or trail system if businesses and the public
understand there are potential solutions to the illegal riding currently taking place.
The economic impact of an ATV system could be positive to the surrounding area. Income could be
generated from hotels, restaurants and shops in the area surrounding the ATV parks. Also, lodges
and restaurants could be set up along the trails themselves in order to draw more users to the system.
LIABILTY/POLICING
The ownership and policing of such a trail system are crucial elements in the operation of the
system. One example of a track was described as having been designated as a multi-use facility for
ATV riders, mountain bikers, pedestrians and bicyclists. The park was closed down after only a few
months because there were several accidents and chaotic situations caused by the wide variety of
users on the trail. Multi-use facilities have both positive and negative aspects associated with them.
If a system is designated multi-use, there is more room for problems arising from the different types
of users, bigger liability risk and more accidents. The positive side of a multi-use system is there
would be more room for funding from different groups.
The liability for such a system is a big concern. Property owners would want the riders to be
responsible for any damages.
The alternatives for ownership of a trail system might be a non-profit group acting as owners. The
property for such a system could come from DNCR, PA Game Commission, Sate Forests, private
landowners and local municipalities.
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be help on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. at the Earth
Conservancy offices.
Topics for discussion:
1. Ownership models/scenarios
a. 501 (c) (3)
b. State Ownership
c. County ownership
d. State develops and gets project operational and passes to non-profit entity
2. County Recreation Commission
3. Trail vs. Track alternatives
November 19, 2003
Page 4
Meeting Minutes
The above represents items discussed and general topics of discussion. Comments should be
directed to Steven Barber, Pennoni Associates Inc., (570) 824-2200 or sbarber@pennoni.com
W:\Projects\ECRO\ATV Feasibility Study\Documents\Meeting 11-18-03.doc
cc:
Distribution (Attendees)
A-File
File
Name
Agency Representing
Address
Mike Dziak
Earth Conservancy
Jacqueline
Dickman
Steve Barber
Earth Conservancy
Scott J. Cope
DCNR
101 S. Main St.
Ashley, PA 18706
101 S. Main St.
Ashley, PA 18706
431 Railroad Ave.
Camp Hill, PA 17011
400 Market St.
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Leonard
Reggie
Patrick Healey
North Branch Regional
Land Trust
ATV Enthusiast
(570)696-3198 bhswood46@aol.com
Fred & Kathy
King
Steve A.
Smithonic Jr.
Joe Arnone
ATV Enthusiast
(570)820-8237 PTPMS@att.net
Pennoni Associates Inc.
PA Game Commission
(570)823-3445 jacqueline.dickman@earthconservancy.org
(717)975-6481 sbarber@pennoni.com
(717)722-3319 sjcope@state.pa.us
(570)655-1007 phealey@pennsbest.net
P.O. Box 220 Dallas, PA
18612
ATV Enthusiast
(570)675-1143 ssmithonic@state.pa.us
(570)829-1456 jos_arn@msn.com
Tim Donohue
(570)821-7515 Dakotas5@epix.com
Colleen
OBrien
Paul A. Levash
PPL Electric Utilities
Edward W.
Glazenski
Dan Kowalski
Luzerne Co. Planning
Commission
ATV Enthusiast
Bill Shepard
Phone
Email Address
Number
(570)823-3445
318 Hanover St. Warrior
Run, PA 18706
Hazleton, PA
(570)820-9756
palevash@papl.com
(570)825-1588 planzone@expi.net
(570)735-3615
(570)288-6196 shep469@adelphia.net
Name
Agency Representing
Greg Hamill
Pocono Mt. ATV Club
Michelle
Marriott
Brad Elison
Pennoni Associates Inc
Bob Conner
Back Mt. Enduro Riders
Address
Phone
Email Address
Number
(570)646-4514 homer@epix.net
100 N. W-B Blvd.
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702
(570)824-2200 mmarriott@pennoni.com
DCNR
Edward
Brennan
Joan
Pekarovsky
George W.
Volpetti
Bernie McGurl
(570)963-4892 belison@state.pa.us
19 Park St.
Glen Lyon, PA 18617
925 W. Main St.
Plymouth Twp., PA
7 N. Market St.
Nanticoke, PA
338 Coal St.
Wilkes-Barre, PA
(570)736-6580
(570)735-0124
(570)740-7031 JPekarov@pahouse.net
(570)200-7433
Lackawanna River
Corridor Association
Thomas
W-B Chamber of
Ruskey
Business & Industry
Steering Committee Members not in attendance for 11/18/03 meeting:
Merle Mackin
Luzerne Co. Tourist
Promotion Agency
Neil Oberto
Hazleton ATV Facility
Joe Rymar
UGI, Newport Twp.
Commissioner
Dennis Demara DCNR
Michele
Breslin
Mark
Scappatura
DCNR
March 4, 2004
Page 1
Meeting Minutes
MEMORANDUM
Date:
February 11, 2004, 3:00 P.M.
Subject:
Earth Conservancy
Location:
Earth Conservancy
Ashley, PA
Attendees:
Attendance list is attached.
A steering committee meeting was held to further discuss the ATV Feasibility Study being
undertaken by Earth Conservancy. Ownerships options as well as preliminary location sites were
discussed.
BACKGROUND
This second meeting of the steering committee was to focus on the ownership models, evaluate the
advantages and disadvantages of each model and locate preliminary locations for the ATV usage.
Steven Barber of Pennoni Associates Inc. presented a power point presentation outlining the various
options for ownership of an ATV park or trail system and identified preliminary location sites. Ms.
Dickman passed out three newspaper articles regarding ATV usage and regulations
OWNERSHIP MODELS
The presentation began by listing four ownership options, state agency create and own, state agency
create and non-profit operate, county own and operate, or non-profit own.
State Agency Ownership
The PA Game Commission is not a viable state run operation because ATV use on state hunting land
is illegal.
The Department of Conservations of Natural Resources (DCNR) is a state ownership option. There
are several existing forest trails throughout the region that could possibly be converted into ATV
trails. The DCNR falls under the Pennsylvania Recreation Use Statute, which states that the land
owners would receive some protection from liability if it is a non-profit establishment and it is
visibly cared for.
Funding for an ATV park owned by the state might face funding issues. There are many resources
that depend on state finding, thereby decreasing the chances for all agencies to get funding.
March 4, 2004
Page 2
Meeting Minutes
A comment was made in favor of the State ownership as opposed to private ownership. It was
suggested that if people opposed to ATV use were to file lawsuits, there would be fewer filed if the
state owned the land as opposed to private citizens owning the land. Another comment was made
stating that the funds from the ATV registration could only be used to fund ATV activities/facilities,
thereby securing more funds for a park/trail.
State Agency Initiation/Non-Profit Operation
Another ownership model would be to have DCNR initiate the park and have a non-profit operate
the facility. A disadvantage of this model is that it requires individuals or groups to take the lead and
form the non-profit group. Also, depending on funding, there could be a lengthy approval process to
clear before something tangible could get off the ground.
A question was raised pertaining to the dates of operation if a non-profit owned the park. The dates
and schedule for such a park would be based on owner preference.
County ownership and operation is the third model. With this option there would already be an
administrative structure in place to manage the park/trail. There is potentially county land available
in the region for such a park. The enforcement on a county run facility would fall upon the local
municipalities or state police forces. A disadvantage of the model is that it would be subject to
county politics and would have to compete with various other projects for funding.
A member stated that a county owned park would eminently fail because other existing county
owned operations have failed in the past.
A comment was made that there are people willing to help out, i.e. other counties, existing ATV
clubs and interested individuals and that his effort should involve not just one county but a few
adjacent counties in order to have a larger area and to distribute responsibility.
The Hatfield-McCoy trail was given as an example showing the large amount of money a park can
raise. In the first four months of the operation in West Virginia, operations brought in $2.74 million
dollars. If several counties joined forces and began a trail, all parties involved could benefit from the
profit.
Another audience member stated the trail in West Virginia does so well because residents were open
to the idea of a trail and the business having a trail could generate for the local economy. It was
suggested that an ATV park would have to be something that involved the people who are going to
utilize it.
A potential issue with a multi-county trail would be the land areas available and the ability to
connect land parcels. This study was initiated because the Earth Conservancy had available land in
lower Luzerne County. A suggestion was made to start something locally, monitor the usage and the
acceptance and then get more counties/areas involved once success was demonstrated. The park
March 4, 2004
Page 3
Meeting Minutes
would have to prove successful first on a smaller scale before a larger effort was made. Those
people opposed to ATV riding would want to see the benefit of the park and its benefit to the area.
A question was raised about the financial impact on the region from such a park. The next meeting
will address more financial benefits to the local economy based on other such studies and existing
parks.
The impact from a park could be substantial. A member stated that California has the leading sales
numbers for the U.S. The total revenue for the ATV business, including dealers, gas and motels
among other business is approximately $4 billion dollars.
Non-Profit Corporation
The final option would be a non-profit corporation owning and operating the park. The members of
the non-profit group would have to rely on their on energies to manage the park. Some
disadvantages include the amount of money needed up-front to start the park off and the
administrative positions needed to be created in order to lead the group. The existing ATV clubs
would be a viable choice because they have the experience and the interest with the issue. There are
a few non-profit groups which currently run ATV parks in the state, ATV Tractions and Headwater’s
Trust Association. The both have a large membership population (400+) and they have grown
significantly in the part two years. The volunteers for these groups do most of the maintenance and
policing. The local clubs could bring more than 1000 members together to start a park. This option
would be beneficial because the members would actually run the park, police and maintain it. Since
the members enjoy the park as well as operate it, grave efforts would be put forth to keep it nicely
maintained as well as strict usage regulations.
The group voted the State Agency to be the most favorable type of ownership. Since the PA Game
Commission is not a plausible option, DCNR is the only agency remaining.
LOCATION
The next topic of discussion after the ownership issue was covered related to the location for an
ATV park. Two areas were identified as being possible sites for the park, Plymouth and Newport
Township. These specific areas were chosen because there is land available in these regions.
Plymouth Township
The Earth Conservancy owns two large parcels (600+ acres total) in Plymouth Township. There is
also nearby state and county property totaling 1785 acres. This site could possibly lend itself to a
trail system with a few track areas off of the tail. The advantages of this site include the large
amount of land available and the existing trails. Some disadvantages include limited roadway access
and adjacent land owners.
A member suggested that even though the Plymouth Twp. site has a large/deep pit area, there are
numerous level spaces for tracks less than 200 yards from these pits. The land in Plymouth
Township was always planned to be used as “green space”.
March 4, 2004
Page 4
Meeting Minutes
Newport Township
The site in Newport Township included Earth Conservancy land as well as private and county
property. The advantages for this particular site include the existing trail network and the roadway
access. Some disadvantages include the location of a proposed development next to the parcel and
the willingness of private property owners.
Some members stated that the Newport site would be attractive to riders because there is already a
large percentage of illegal riding there. The trails exist and cause very little disturbance to
neighbors.
The consensus was that Newport Township would be best suited for more linear trails and the
Plymouth Township land would be better for tracks.
Comments were made that 100 acres of ATV trails/tracks are not going to satisfy the local riders.
The suggestion was made to take a more detailed look into the Newport Township parcels and to
provide a visual illustration of the locations for the audience.
Next Meeting
The next meeting date will be Wednesday April 14, 2003 at 3:00 p.m. at the Earth Conservancy
Office.
Topics for discussion:
1. Financial impact for local business
2. Comparison of data from other ATV studies
The above represents items discussed and general topics of discussion. Comments should be
directed to Steven Barber, Pennoni Associates Inc., (570) 824-2200 or sbarber@pennoni.com.
cc:
A-File
File
Steering Committee Meeting For ATV Feasibility Study
February 11, 2004
Name
Agency Representing
Address
Phone
Email
1 Jackie Dickman
Earth Conservancy
101 South Main Street Ashley, PA
570.823.3446
earthcon@intergrafix.net
2 Mike Dziak
Earth Conservancy
101 South Main Street Ashley, PA
570.823.3446
earthcon@intergrafix.net
3 Scott J. Cope
DCNR
400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA
717.772.3319
sjcope@state.pa.us
4 Lorne Possinger
DCNR
101 Penn Avenue Scanton, PA
570.963.5673
lpossinger@state.pa.us
5 Kevin Amos
Black Diamond ATV
158 Alden Mount Road, Nanticoke, PA 18634
570.735.3615
6 Todd W. Jones
Black Diamond ATV
158 Alden Mount Road, Nanticoke, PA 18634
570.779.1600
7 Joan Pekarovsky
Rep. John Yuclichak
7 N. Market Street, Nanticoke, PA 18634
570.740.7031
jpekarov@pahouse.net
8 Tim Donohue
Quad Rider
192 Dana Street Wilkes-Barre, PA
570.821.7515
dakotas5@epix.net
9 Joe Rymar
UGI
Stewart Road Havover Township, PA
570.830.1211
jrymar@ugi.com
10 Paul A. Levash
PPL
334 S. Poplar Street Hazleton, PA
570.459.7465
palevash@pplweb.com
11 Bradley Elison
DCNR
101 Penn Avenue Scanton, PA
570.963.4561
belison@state.pa.us
12 Merle Mackin
Luzerne County CVB
56 Public Square Wilkes-Barre, PA
570.819.1877
tourncpa@tourncpa
13 George Volpetti
Riders World
338 Coal Street Wilkes-Barre, PA
570.200.7433
start@ridersworld.com
14 Adam Mattis
DCNR
400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA
717.772.3704
amattis@state.pa.us
15 Patrick Healey
Valley ATV Club
130 Chapel Street Pittston, PA
570.655.1007
phealey@pennsbest.net
16 Greg Hamill
Pocono Mountain ATV
P.O. Box 124 Blakeslee, PA
570.646.4514
homer@epix.net
17 Michelle Marriott
Pennoni Associates, Inc.
100 N. Wilkes-Barre Blvd. Wilkes-Barre, PA
570.824.2200
mmarriott@pennoni.com
18 Bob Conner
Back Mountain
19 Park Street Glen Lyon, PA
570.736.6580
bobc@wilkesbarrepa.com
19 Colleen O'Brien
Warrior Run Boro
318 Hanover Street, Warrior Run PA
570.820.9756
20 Steve Harkins
Paatving.com
3370 Morris Road Lansdale, PA
610.584.5417
admin@paatving.com
21 Steve Barber
Pennoni Associates, Inc.
431 Railroad Ave. Camp Hill, PA 17011
717.975.6841
sbarber@pennoni.com
22
23
24
25
July 13, 2004
Page 1
Meeting Minutes
MEMORANDUM
Date:
July 13, 2004, 3:00 p.m.
Subject:
Earth Conservancy
Location:
Earth Conservancy
Ashley, PA
Attendees: Lorne Possinger, Dan Kowalski, Tim Donohue, Paul Levash, Brad Elison, Adam
Mattis, Patrick Healey, Greg Hamill, Bob Connor, Ellen Ferretti, Steve Smithonic Jr., Kathy King,
Steve Barber, Mike Dziak, Jackie Dickman
A steering committee meeting was held to further discuss the ATV Feasibility Study being
undertaken by Earth Conservancy. Topics of discussion for this meeting included: enforcement
options, liability coverage options, updates on ownership options as well as additional information
on the preliminary location sites.
BACKGROUND
This third meeting of the steering committee focused on: Numbers of Registered ATV’s and
Potential Financial Impacts, Liability Issues, Enforcement Issues, Ownership Models Updates, and
Preliminary Locations Updates.
Steven Barber of Pennoni Associates Inc. conducted the meeting and provided an overview of the
meeting’s purpose. Each steering committee member introduced him/herself. Mr. Barber then gave
a power point presentation outlining the various discussion topics.
NUMBERS OF REGISTERED ATV’S AND POTENTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Total ATV Sales
National Sales for ATV’s in 2002 were presented for a 6-month period. Mike Dziak asked Pennoni
to determine the total number of ATV’s sold in a given year to compare this to national sales figures.
Total Number of Registered ATV’s
All data presented in this meeting was current as of March 2004.
There are a total of 204,878 registered vehicles in Pennsylvania. However, it is surmised that there
are a significant number of unregistered vehicles; the number of unregistered vehicles is not known
July 13, 2004
Page 2
Meeting Minutes
and would be difficult to determine. Pennsylvania ranks second in ATV behind Texas for number of
registered vehicles. Luzerne County ranks in the top 5 for registered ATVs of all PA counties.
Mike Dziak asked a question regarding registration requirements of out of state operators riding in
PA. Steve Barber indicated that an operator from out of state must register his/her ATV in PA to
ride legally in the state.
Financial Impacts
Population data from the 2000 census was used to determine financial impacts of ATV ridership.
According to the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, Inc., the majority of drivers
will travel approximately 1-3 hours to ride their OHVs. The drive time and associated total
population within each drive time category breaks down as follows:
1 Hour (50 miles) from the Lower Wyoming Valley: 1,785,524
2 Hours (100 miles) from the Lower Wyoming Valley: 11,970,397
3 Hours (150 miles) from the Lower Wyoming Valley: 25,766,895
All ATV ownership figures are based on DCNR registration information. In the three-county area
(Luzerne, Lackawanna, Monroe), 3.23% of the population own ATVs. Additionally, 2% of the
population within three hours of the Lower Wyoming Valley own ATVs, excluding out of state
users.
The percentages are based on the population in that area and the total number of ATV’s sold but not
necessarily registered.
Potential users by drive time are as follows:
1 Hour (50 miles) 57,672
2 Hours (100 miles) 264,425
3 Hours (150 miles) 544,494
The committee discussed the potential financial impacts the Lower Wyoming Valley could expect
from both day and overnight trips to this area. Bob Conner indicated that he estimated the average
rider spends approximately $100.00 day per trip.
It was noted that buying parts in-state for ATVs would also affect financial impact to the area. Steve
Barber noted that the potential might not be billions but even millions would be a potentially realistic
estimate.
LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
The next topic of discussion was the liability issues. At the previous steering committee meeting the
group requested information related to other ATV facilities and the approach taken by those facilities
to trespassing and insurance coverage. Several different types of riding venues and operations were
outlined.
July 13, 2004
Page 3
Meeting Minutes
The first area discussed was ATV Traction, Inc. in Erie, PA, which uses a 7-mile abandoned railroad
line for riding, with additional private land available to the group. The group recently received a
DCNR grant to purchase an additional 15 acres for use as a safety and rider training area. Mike
Dziak asked the dimensions of the current trial owned by the club. Steve Barber indicated that it is
50-foot-wide x 7-mile long trail.
ATV Traction Inc., covers liability costs by making a membership to the club mandatory for anyone
wishing to use the trail. The club relies exclusively on PA Recreation Statute and general
homeowner liability. At the previous meeting, the steering committee discussed liability and the
Good Samaritan Law, which states that property owners allowing riders to access their privately held
lands without a fee are not legally liable for rider injured while riding on the private lands. Bob
Conner asked whether Good Samaritan Law was similar to the “whole harmless clause,” to which
Steve indicated that they are the same.
Jackie Dickman asked if membership dues were charged. Steve Barber replied that they were
required.
Enforcement of illegal riding is accomplished by recording members’ registrations when they are on
the trail. Additionally, members self-police the trail by stopping unknown riders.
Private Riding Areas
Private riding areas were discussed next, including Rausch Creek Motorsports, Plumcreek Valley
Park and Wolfman’s Park. All riders must complete a liability waiver form to ride in these areas.
Enforcement is upheld by staff monitoring of restricted areas. These types of riding parks are selfcontained, which means that enforcement can be handled differently to more open terrain venues.
Riders at these parks enter through a gate and either get their hands stamped or are given a bracelet
to wear. Riders must present the stamp or bracelet upon request.
Paragon Sports
Paragon is a large private riding area covering approximately 6,000 acres and allows a variety of
OHVs to use the facility. Currently, this riding area has liability insurance but management requires
all riders to sign a liability waiver and pay a fee to use their facility. Wristbands are mandatory to
enter the riding facility and all ATV’s must have flags attached, which makes registered riders
visible to authorities. Guests and/or staff members are asked to report any trespassers.
Initially, Paragon had problems with illegal riding but spent one year blocking all illegal trail access
points. This sometimes required a daily effort on the part of the owners. The effort greatly reduced
illegal riding, but Paragon now regularly patrols the property.
Greg Hamill stated that he has been to the Paragon and said that he would never go back. He said
that excessive mixed-use traffic was a major issue and that his children were nearly hit by off-road
trucks using the facility. He indicated that the variety of vehicles allowed to use the park could
present safety problems. Hamill noted that Paragon received a grant to build bathrooms on the
property.
July 13, 2004
Page 4
Meeting Minutes
Tower City Trail Riders, Inc. carries commercial liability insurance costing $12,000/year. There are
no ATV competitions allowed under this policy. It also has a liability waiver that riders must sign as
part of their membership. Enforcement is upheld by requiring all riders to wear helmets and have
entrance stickers visible on helmets. The group strictly enforced the helmet requirement. Members
are asked to help enforce the trespassing rule by looking for riders that do not have stickers. The
group president was quoted as saying, “They have a good deal and everyone wants to protect the
area,” according to Barber.
Tower City requires a membership fee of $200 per year for individuals or $250 for families.
Membership costs for residents within the county are reduced. Currently, Tower City has
approximately 2000 members and holds the largest membership within a 4-state region. Tower City
is currently leasing 6,000 acres for a five-year period. It has an 80%-20% payment arrangement
with the landowners, which means 80% of all proceeds go to the landowners and 20% of the
proceeds go to the club. The 1st lease period paid the property owner approximately $40,000/year
for 5 years. Currently, approximately $1,000,000 over the 5-year lease goes back to the property
owners.
Earth Conservancy Property
Mike Dziak indicated that EC’s insurance does not allow motorized activities on EC property. Mike
stated that because of this, if the board were interested in pursuing something with ATVs the land
would have to be sold.
Greg Hamill said that a legislative bill has been introduced that if passed would assume liability
issues would be the responsibility of the rider. Because some ATV associations are a non-profit
groups riding on private land, insurance carriers classify them in the same category as ski resorts.
Adam Mattis said that the bill has gone through the senate but he is not sure of its current status.
OWNERSHIP OPTIONS
DCNR Ownership
The committee next compared the advantages and disadvantages of DCNR ownership. Some of the
advantages would be: all trails consistently maintained; uniform oversight of enforcement, and
funding. Disadvantages include, the lengthy timeline for implementation, approvals and funding.
County Ownership
Committee members discussed the alternatives of utilizing land owned by the County. It is known
that the county considered creating a recreation authority, but to date, there has been no action.
Dziak noted that attempts were made to reach contacts in the County, but he had not yet received
responses.
July 13, 2004
Page 5
Meeting Minutes
With regard to other PA counties creating recreation authorities, Mattis reported that an advisory
board was formed to handle planning and construction of the recreation area. By the time the rec
area opens, a non-profit will have been formed to run the everyday operations and maintenance of
the site with the County Recreation Authority retaining ownership of the land. Mattis said there is a
Rock Run Advisory Committee, with 13 voting members. Membership to the authority includes
riders, state and local representatives, Heritage Area members and a few others.
Ellen Ferretti noted that the County Open Space Plan includes provisions for ATV operations and a
Recreation Commission. Specifically the Plan noted several mixed-use trails and provided for
management and oversight of the facilities. Ellen is going to forward a copy of the open space plan
for review and inclusion of information in the final report.
Non-Profit Corp. Ownership
The committee discussed the potential for a non-profit corporation to own and operate a trail/park,
including advantages and disadvantages. Non-profits are exempt from federal corporate income
taxes and would be eligible to receive public and private grants. Any donor contributions that are
received would be tax deductible. A non-profit would still require liability protection.
Bob Conner presented a report from the Anthracite Regional Trail System Coalition (ARTSC). Bob
Conner reported that that several groups including Valley ATV, Pocono ATV, Black Diamond and
Back Mountain Enduro Riders have met and are attempting to form a coalition from the individual
clubs. Currently there are more than 500 members represented among the clubs. Members have
discussed financial aspects and recruitment. The meetings are held the 2nd Sunday of each month at
the LCCC Educational Conference Center. Anyone is welcome to attend the meetings.
Dan Kowalski added that he thinks the association is a great idea. Greg Hamill said that they
appreciate what the Earth Conservancy has done to help.
PROPERTY ALTERNATIVES UPDATES
The next section of the meeting included updates on the properties presented the committee during
the last steering committee.
Plymouth Township Region
The area in Plymouth Township includes two EC parcels; one parcel is 300 acres and the other 325
acres. The State Forest Property is approximately 1300 acres, and the County near Moon Lake is
approximately 485 acres.
State Route 29 splits the Plymouth Twp. site. There is only one crossing point from South to North,
but it is not a viable crossing. The crossing area is an easement for the PA American Water
Company. The soil is soft and has been recently seeded. There is an existing structure (bridge) that
crosses the creek. In order to access this structure a trail would have to travel down the hill and
cross SR 29 at grade and then travel along a very narrow shoulder of SR 29. Mike Dziak said that
there are no alternative crossings of which he is aware.
July 13, 2004
Page 6
Meeting Minutes
EC Staff met with Plymouth Township Supervisors in the weeks prior to the ATV meeting. The
Supervisors indicated they would not support any ATV activity along the south end of the area. This
area includes the two EC parcels. The supervisors are concerned with conflicts with residences in
the area and also with future residential development of the area.
Lorne Possinger said that when the DCNR looked into the Moon Lake Area and Lackwanna State
Forest area that a terrace or sound and dust barriers would need to be put in place. There could be a
potential for linear trail riding through the existing state forest property but no open riding, adding
that the County would need to be consulted. Mike Dziak said that he was not aware of the county’s
position related to the site. Mike indicated that DCNR recently purchased a large block of property
adjacent to the existing State Forest property referred to as the Theta Lands. While this land is
owned and controlled by DCNR it was purchased in order to preserve the lands for Luzerne County.
Lorne said the Theta land is connected with state forest out to Moon Lake.
Ellen Ferretti indicated Luzerne County’s Open Space Master Plan addressed the issue of ATV
riding and the establishment of a Recreation Authority as a regulatory agency for these activities.
Though the concept of ATV trails were part of the Plan, Ellen thought it was highly unlikely that the
county would allow ATV’s to ride in the Moon Lake park area. Ellen would forward a copy of the
plan for inclusion in the study. Mike Dziak indicated that the county has not committed to operating
a facility; however, EC would be willing to sell property to the county to operate an ATV facility.
Newport Township Region
The Newport Township area consists of EC and private property. Mr. Barber presented several
photographs of heavily used, existing ATV trails near the cemetery area as well as along the
powerline area.
Bradley Elison noted he supports the concept of ATV trails; however, he does not have the staff nor
the time to operate and maintain trails on property in Newport Twp. as the property is removed from
the existing state forest lands and is a fair distance to travel for maintenance. Adam Mattis reiterated
that DCNR has purchased property to add to existing state forests; however, the property was
immediately adjacent to an existing state forest.
EC staff and Pennoni Associates Inc. made a presentation to the Newport Township Supervisors to
solicit their interest in ATV trails in their township.
Jackie Dickman read a statement from Joseph Rymar, indicating that Newport Township is
interested in continuing discussions regarding locating a trail in the township. The supervisors
expressed interested but were cautious about the design and area the potential trail would cover.
Rymar noted that of paramount importance to the supervisors would be that any trail does not
present a problem for residents living in proximity to the trail, especially with regard to noise.
Before making a final decision about a trail in the area, supervisors would need to see much more
detailed information.
Mike Dziak said that the Earth Conservancy’s position is that if a trail were to be considered in
Newport Township, the property ownership issue would need to be resolved. He added that any
July 13, 2004
Page 7
Meeting Minutes
finals decision would have to be made by EC’s board. Mike reminded the group not to focus solely
on EC’s property as the only available riding area but to also look at other properties. While Mike
agreed the trail coalition was a good start but it would not solve the illegal rider issues or the
property access issues.
Steering Committee Decisions
Steve Barber indicated that the next step is the preparation of a draft report document. It is
anticipated that the draft document will be submitted to the committee for comment and review in
September. A final steering committee meeting will be scheduled to compile comments. A final
report is expected to be issued in October.
cc:
A-File
File
APPENDIX B
STEERING COMMITTEE
POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Feasible
1.
Capable of being done or carried out;
practicable; possible.
2.
Within reason; likely; probable.
3.
Capable of being used or dealt with
successfully; suitable.
- Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition
Vision of the Study

Identify land areas amenable to ATV
usage
Identify areas most conducive to ATV
usage
Identify challenges/hurdles
Outline costs

Short term construction
Long term maintenance
Identification
Potential Problem Areas
•
Property Ownership
1.Public
2.Private
•
Liability
•
Insurance Costs
•
Public Safety
Identification
Identification
•
•
Environmental Concerns
Policing and Patrolling
1. Illegal Trespassing accessing trails
•Natural
2. Enforcement issues
•Historic
• Police issues
•
Economic benefits/negatives
• Fines
•
Development Costs
• Other Actions
•
Maintenance
•
Long Term Effects
1
SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS
•
Rocky Gap ATV/Bike Trail, PA
•
Marienville ATV / Bike Trail, PA
•
Maumee State Forest, OH
•
Silver Lake State Park, MI
•
Hatfields & McCoys ATV Trail, VA
•
Paragon Adventure Park, PA
Rocky Gap ATV Trail, PA
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/allegheny/recreation/trails/atv.html
– 20.8 Miles of available trails
– Forestry Service ownership
– Usage Fees for Day and Year / Person
– Maintenance by the Forestry Service
and volunteers
– Amenities include camping
– Users sign a liability waiver
Marienville ATV / Bike Trail, PA
Maumee State Forest, OH
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/allegheny/recreation/trails/atv.html
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/forestry/Forests/stateforests/maumee.htm
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/forestry/Forests/stateforests/maumee.htm
– 37 Miles of available trails
– Maintenance by local ATV clubs
– Amenities include camping
Silver Lake State Park, MI
http://www.michigandnr.com/parksandtrails/ParksandTrailsInfo.asp?id
http://www.michigandnr.com/parksandtrails/ParksandTrailsInfo.asp?id--493
– No Usage Fees
– Available amenities include camping
– Forestry Service Ranger enforcement
Hatfields and McCoys ATV Trail,
VA
http://www.trailsheaven.com
– Private ownership – HatfieldHatfield-McCoy Regional
Recreation Authority
– Maintenance by owner
– Amenities include camping and rentals
2
Paragon Adventure Park, PA
Construction
http://www.paragonap.com
Specifications
–
–
–
–
–
130 Miles of available trails
Private ownership – Paragon Park (Corporation)
Usage Fees and Guide Fees
Maintenance by owner
Amenities include a snack shack, guided tours, and
rentals
•
Cross-sections
7 feet wide (min.) One-Way
12 feet wide (min.) Two-Way
•
Surfaces
Natural
Prepared
Construction
Trail Characteristics
•
Drainage
• Trails
•
Bridges
•Skill levels
American Motorcyclist Association
Off-Highway Motorcycle & ATV
Trails Guidelines for Design,
Construction, Maintenance and
User Satisfaction, 2nd Edition
•Area required
•Tracks
•Man-made obstacles
•Minimal area
•Controllable
Property Availability
•
Public Property Challenges
Public Property
DCNR

• Available property
• Funding
PA Game Commission

State Forests
Local Municipalities
•
Private Property
Private Owners
Utility Companies
DCNR

Construction
Maintenance
PA Game Commission
•
•
•
•
Earth Conservancy Property Right of Way
Regulatory prohibitions
Available property
Mixed uses

Hunting
ATV’
ATV’s
3

State Forests
• Funding

Construction
Maintenance

Local Municipalities
• Liability
• Residential Conflicts
Noise
Safety
Dust

• Existing trails statewide

• Regulatory Conflicts
Private Property Challenges

Private Land Owners
Sustainability
•
• Liability
• Property Impacts

User fees
Business sponsorships
Utility Companies
• Utility RightRight-ofof-Ways

Power lines
Gas Lines
• Liability
Maintenance Costs
Volunteer labor
•
Maintenance Responsibility
Local stakeholder organizations
Land owners
Tasks for Steering Committee
Tasks for Steering Committee
• Trail Characteristics
• Identify coordination needed
• Develop alternatives
– Design Options
• Trails
• Tracks
• Identify potential properties available
– Barriers for potential use
– Regulatory issues
– Liability issues
– Ownership
– Construction
– Maintenance
– Enforcement
4
Steering Committee Agenda

Steering Committee Meeting #2
Ownership Models

State Agency Initiation

Preliminary Locations
PA Game Commission

Potential State Agency Owners

NonNon-Profit Operation
NonNon-Profit Corporation
“The illegal operation of ATV’
ATV’s on State Game Lands and
other properties open to public hunting remains a
violation of the law and continues to be aggressively
enforced by our Conservation Officers and their Deputy
WCO’
WCO’s. We view this as no different than the illegal
use of automobiles, trucks and SUV’
SUV’s on these
properties”
properties”
PA Game Commission
DCNR

DCNR Ownership
DCNR Ownership
State Forest Trails:
Summer Trails
Buchanan State Forest
Summer/Winter Trails
Delaware State Forest

(18 & 15 miles)

Susquehannock State
Forest (43 miles)
Bald Eagle State Forest
(7 miles)

(36(36-42 miles)

(7 miles)

Delaware State Forest
(13 & 8 miles)
Michaux State Forest
Sproul State Forest
(45 & 20 miles)

Tiadaghton State Forest
(17 miles)
Source: PA Game Commission’
Commission’s ATV Use Policy

Trail Creation
Trail Management and Maintenance
Liability
Enforcement
Funding of Trails

Construction
Maintenance
1
DCNR Ownership

Trail Creation

DCNR Ownership

Liability

State Forest Trails
Pennsylvania Recreational Use Statute

Title 68, Chapter 11, Section 477

DCNR Employees

Not valid if landowner “charges”
charges”

DCNR Ownership

Enforcement of ATV Laws

State Game Lands

State and Municipal Police

Private Property

Advantages

Consistency

Trails
Maintenance

Oversight

Funding

Enforcement

Disadvantages

Timeline for
Implementation
Approvals
Funding
Land purchases
Plan development and surveys
Construction and Maintenance
Equipment purchase
Application Period

State and Municipal Police
August – October
Awards ~December
DCNR Initiation
DCNR Ownership

ATV Registration Fees
Fines Collected
DCNR Grants

Wildlife Conservation Officers (WCO
(WCO’’s)
Deputy WCO’
WCO’s
State and Municipal Roads

Funding of Trails

DCNR Rangers

“Charge”
Charge” means the admission price of fee asked in return
for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land.
DCNR Ownership
State Forest and State Park Lands

Recreation Use of Land and Water
“The purpose of this act is to encourage owners of land to
make land and water areas available to the public for the
recreational purposes by limiting the liability toward
persons entering thereon for such purposes”
purposes”

DCNR Initiation

Purchase property
Establish trails / facilities

Trail maintenance
Enforcement
Steering Committee?
2
DCNR Initiation

Advantages

Disadvantages
Trails
Maintenance
Oversight

Consistency
Enforcement
Funding

Formation of NonNon-profit
NonNon-profit funding
Timeline for
Implementation
Approvals
County Ownership

County Recreation Commission
Trail Creation

County land?

County maintenance forces
County administration
Steering Committee?
County Ownership

Liability
Enforcement

County Ownership

Green County Feasibility Study

Municipal / State Police

Funding of Trails

Bankrupt mining company property
Land Ownership

Construction
Maintenance

Maintenance and Operations

County Ownership

Green County Feasibility Study

Issues

County financial issues

Co. purchase mining property
Purchase additional property
Cost of staff to maintain/operate
Adjacent to residential areas
Limited public input

501c.(3)

Formed for purposes other than generating a profit

Broad based and allows instruction for selfself-development and
community benefit.
Requirements

Feasibility study draft in process
no part of income is distributed to director’
director’s or officers
Educational, Charitable, Foster National Sports
Competition

No steering committee!
Steering Committee?
Co. staff maintain facility
Support from local ATV Clubs

Bankrupt mine company
Private property easements
Board of Directors
Bylaws
Applications – State, Federal
Contributions allowable

YES
3

Advantages of NonNon-Profit

Exempt from Federal Corp. Income Taxes
Eligible to receive public and private grants

Donors contributions tax deductible.
Limited Liability Protection

Directors, trustees, officers, members not
personally responsible for debts and liabilities of
Corporation.
Example Non-Profit

Disadvantages of NonNon-Profit

Increased paperwork and records
Articles of Incorporation
Bylaws prepared
Meeting minutes
Corporate Records

Best Ownership Option?
YES
ATV Traction

Individual, Family, Dealer Memberships
Use of all ATV Traction trails and facilities

Currently own 8 miles of abandoned Railroad bed.
Access to trail maps and information
Continuing Education and Safety Programs
Headwater’
Headwater’s Trust Association

Snowshoe Region Trail – Membership
Steering Committee?
Location, Location, Location

Tracks vs. Trails

Available property dependent
Preliminary Locations

NO
State Agency
State Agency /
NonNon-Profit
County
NonNon-Profit Corp.
Steering Committee?
State Forest
• Lackawana State
Forest
Other available property
4

Parcel #1

Size = 300 Acres
Parcel #2

Size = 325 Acres

State Forest Property

County Property

Size = 1300 Acres
Size = 485 Acres

State Forest
District Forester, Lackawanna Forest District:
“The DCNR, Bureau of Forestry mission includes providing
low density recreation opportunities for the public…
public….The
Bureau does not have the role or the means to provide
intensive ATV parks however, where disturbed land such
as abandoned strip mines exist adjacent to State Forest,
the potential exists to consider development of additional
ATV riding opportunities”
opportunities”

Include:
Advantages

EC property
State forest property
Private owners

Large amount of available property
Parallel pits and spoils to allow for maximum use
with minimum impact

Pending reclamation of the major open pits
Existing trails and terrain that limits noise and dust
to surrounding areas
Distance from residential areas
Willingness of neighboring private property owners

Disadvantages
Neighboring private property owners
Linking of parcels
Roadway access to site

Narrow local roadways
Increased traffic

Linear Parcel
Private Property
County Property
Noise pollution
Air pollution / Dust

Steering Committee?
5

Advantages

Mine scarred lands
Existing trails and terrain that limits noise and dust
to surrounding areas
Local roadway access

Disadvantages

Adjacent to planned Residential Development
Cooperation of private property owners
Linking of parcels
Noise pollution
Air pollution / Dust

Steering Committee?
Steering Committee Next Steps

Preferred Ownership/Operation option.
Identify preliminary areas for trails

Access
Adjacent property owners
Impacts
Sustainability
Identify additional areas for trails

Key hurdles for suggested areas?

Total acres available
Noise, dust, enforcement, etc..
Operation / Maintenance options

ATV Groups?
Townships?
Recreation Authorities?
Steering Committee
Homework Assignment
6
Steering Committee Agenda
Steering Committee
Meeting #3

Total ATV Sales

Powersports Industry Dealer News

Numbers of Registered ATV’
ATV’s
Potential Financial Impacts
Liability Issues
Enforcement Issues
Ownership Models Updates
Preliminary Locations Updates
Numbers of Registered ATV’s

National Sales for 2002
January through June
Total number of Active and Limited
Vehicles

ATV’
ATV’s = 34,870
Motocross Bikes = 4,804
Enduro Bikes = 7,515

Source: DCNR
Leading States for Sales
1. Texas
2. Pennsylvania
3. New York
4. Ohio

Total 6 month sales = 47,190

PA Registered Vehicles (March 2004) =
204,878

2001 sales = 37,801

Source: National OffOff-Highway Vehicle Conservation
Council, Inc.
Numbers of Registered ATV’s

Luzerne County = 6,301
Lackawanna County = 3,872
Monroe County = 2840
Financial Impacts

Total Population by drive time

Source: 2000 Census Data
1 hour (50 miles) = 1,785,524
2 hours (100 miles) = 11,970,397
3 hours (150 miles) = 25,766,895
#1 in PA: Allegheny County = 9,179
Out of State = 4,572
1
Financial Impacts

ATV Ownership Based on DCNR
registrations

Financial Impacts

3.23% of population own ATV’
ATV’s in region
2.03% of population within a 3 hour drive
own ATV’
ATV’s

Potential users by driving time

1 hour (50 miles) = 57,672
2 hours (100 miles) = 264,425
3 hours (150 miles) = 544,494
Does not include out of state users
Financial Impacts

Day Trips

1 hr = $5,767,200
2 hr = $26,442,500
3 hr = $70,072,625
Source:

Colorado OffOff-Highway
Users Study, 2000
Average $100/day/user
Overnight Trips
1 hr = $15,283,080
2 hr = $70,072,625
3 hr = $144,290,910
Source:

Financial Impacts

New Hampshire Economic Study

$60.12 for inin-state travel
$46.40 for outout-ofof-state travel

Colorado OffOff-Highway
Users Study, 2000
Average $265/day/user
July 2002 to June 2003
Granite State AllAll-terrain Vehicle Association

1 hour (50 miles) = $3,467,241
2 hours (100 miles) = $15,897,231
3 hours (150 miles) = $25,264,522

Financial Impacts
Liability and Enforcement Issues

Businesses directly affected

Gas stations
Restaurants
Convenience Markets
Equipment Sales
Parts
Repairs

Lodging
Note: 3 hours assumed outout-ofof-state
Dependent on ownership

Dependent on operations

Private (tracks, riding areas)
Public (DCNR, Forest Service Trails)
Pay to ride
Open access to public
Case studies of various operations in PA

ATV Traction, Inc.
Private Areas
2
ATV Traction Inc.
(Non-profit Entity)

Erie, PA
Owns 7 mile abandoned Railroad line

Additional private land usage
Grant to purchase additional 15 Ac.
Trailhead/Education Facility
ATV Traction Inc.
(Non-profit Entity)

Liability

Membership in club required to ride
Relying exclusively on PA Recreation Statute

General homeowner liability
Enforcement

All members registrations recorded
Illegal riders stopped by members
Private Riding Areas

Rausch Creek Motorsports
Plumcreek Valley Park
Wolfman’
Wolfman’s Park

Paragon Sports

Liability

Private Riding Area

Riders complete liability waiver form
Enforcement
Enforcement

Flags and Wristbands issued on entry

HEAVY illegal trail blockage

Restricted areas with staff monitoring
Effectiveness

(Non(Non-profit Entity)

Commercial liability insurance
$12,000/yr NO COMPETITION

Liability waiver as part of membership application

ALL riders wear helmet stickers

Self enforced, ie.
ie. no sticker = trespassing

Helmets required at ALL times
“We have a good deal and everyone wants to protect the
area.”
area.”
“Continuous for over a year.”
year.”
Membership

(Non(Non-profit Entity)
$200/yr, $250/yr$250/yr-family

Reduced membership costs for local residents

~2,000 members

$100,000/yr if competition
Enforcement
Guests and Staff expected to report trespassers.
Liability

Private insurance
Fee required to use facility
Users sign a liability waiver
Largest membership in 4 state region.
Lease 6,000 Acres

5 year property lease
80% - 20% Payment Arrangement

80% of proceeds to landowner
20% of proceeds to club
1st lease ~$40,000/yr

Currently ~$1,000,000/yr to property owner

3
Ownership Alternatives

16,300 Total Acres
Insurance Coverage

Updates

State Agency (DCNR)

No motormotor-sports activities allowed under
current insurance coverage
Waivers not accepted by insurance company

State Forests
County Ownership
NonNon-profit Entity
DCNR Ownership
County Ownership

County Recreation Commission?
Trail Creation

Advantages
Consistency

Trails
Maintenance

Oversight

Funding

Enforcement

Disadvantages

Timeline for
Implementation
Approvals
Funding

County land?
County maintenance forces
County administration
Issues

County financial issues

Recreation Commission Support?

Steering Committee?

Advantages of NonNon-Profit

Exempt from Federal Corp. Income Taxes
Eligible to receive public and private grants

Donors contributions tax deductible.
Cost of staff to maintain/operate
Steering Committee?
Update on Property Alternatives

Liability Protection
Report from:
Anthracite Regional Trail System Coalition
Steering Committee?
4
State Forest
• Lackawana State
Forest

Property near residential areas (NOT supported by Twp.)

Parcel #1

Parcel #2

State Forest Property

County Property

Access
SR 29 Crossing

Access
SR 29 Crossing
Size = 1300 Acres
Size = 485 Acres
Property

Property
Size = 325 Acres

Property
Size = 300 Acres
Access
SR 29 Crossing
Property

Access
SR 29 Crossing
5
Plymouth Township Supervisors

Meeting with Earth Conservancy Staff
Township does not support

Additional areas:

County Property
No comment to date

DCNR Property
No comment to date
DCNR Property
No comment to date
Property
Access
Property

Near Newport Center Cemetery
Update/report from Supervisor, Joseph Rymar

Interested provided DCNR involvement

Preferred Ownership/Operation option?

Earth Conservancy’
Conservancy’s Property Usage

Possible?

Provided DCNR initiates opening, operations, maintenance
Concern of long term stability
Longitudinal trail areas
Power line along State Route
Meeting with Newport Township Supervisors

Access

Private Property
Newly Purchased Theta Lands

Approximate Total Acres
Lackawana State Forest

Moon Lake Area

Riding areas near residential areas

County
Townships
NonNon-Profit Organization
Preferred Liability Option?
Preferred Enforcement Option?
Steering Committee
RANK Options
6
Steering Committee Next Steps

Review Draft Report

Draft report September
Final report October
7
APPENDIX C
ATV REGISTRATIONS
PENNSYLVANIA BY COUNTY
County Name
Active Vehicles
ATV
Limited Vehicles
ATV
Total
00 UNKNOWN
3,318
440
3,758
01 ADAMS
1,425
980
2,405
02 ALLEGHENY
6,443
2,736
9,179
03 ARMSTRONG
2,696
1,215
3,911
04 BEAVER
2,293
785
3,078
05 BEDFORD
1,605
1,008
2,613
06 BERKS
3,008
1,225
4,233
07 BLAIR
2,781
1,118
3,899
08 BRADFORD
1,925
1,009
2,934
09 BUCKS
1,954
1,046
3,000
10 BUTLER
3,941
1,010
4,951
11 CAMERTA
3,402
1,366
4,768
12 CAMERON
243
74
317
13 CARBON
1,293
201
1,494
14 CENTRE
1,671
1,480
3,151
15 CHESTER
2,285
908
3,193
16 CLARION
1,510
630
2,140
17 CLEARFIELD
3,392
1,641
5,033
699
601
1,300
19 COLUMBIA
1,983
710
2,693
20 CRAWFORD
2,552
785
3,337
21 CUMBERLAND
1,828
784
2,612
22 DAUPHIN
1,844
769
2,613
23 DELAWARE
1,068
296
1,364
24 ELK
1,914
545
2,459
25 ERTE
1,855
797
2,652
26 FAYETTE
2,887
3,220
6,107
239
59
298
1,464
868
2,332
29 FULTON
267
286
553
30 GREENE
703
998
1,701
31 HUNTINGDON
804
1,365
2,169
32 INDIANA
2,790
1,214
4,004
33 JEFFERSON
1,862
877
2,739
539
877
1,416
18 CLINTON
27 FOREST
28 FRANKLIN
34 JUNIATA
G:\ERCO\0201.02 ATV Study\Feasibility Study\Final Document\Final Draft Submission 3-2-05\PA ATV
Registrations 3_01_04.xls
County Name
Active Vehicles
ATV
Limited Vehicles
ATV
Total
35 LACKAWANNA
3,040
832
3,872
36 LANCASTER
4,147
1,797
5,944
37 LAWRENCE
1,509
966
2,475
38 LENBANON
1,031
500
1,531
39 LEHIGH
1,836
426
2,262
40 LUZERNE
4,875
1,426
6,301
41 LYCOMING
1,611
2,267
3,878
42 MCKEAN
1,780
348
2,128
43 MERCER
2,425
364
2,789
359
1,057
1,416
45 MONROE
2,055
485
2,540
46 MONTGOMERY
3,431
929
4,360
270
230
500
48 NORTHAMPTON
2,162
470
2,632
49 NORTHUMBERLAND
1,612
887
2,499
50 PERRY
1,114
783
1,897
51 PHILADELPHIA
1,132
495
1,627
52 PIKE
1,039
220
1,259
926
388
1,314
2,799
837
3,636
753
576
1,329
1,567
1,182
2,749
213
230
443
58 SUSQUEHANNA
1,283
481
1,764
59 TIOGA
1,237
817
2,054
60 UNION
455
326
781
61 VENANGO
2,105
100
2,205
62 WARREN
1,415
441
1,856
63 WASHINGTON
2,537
1,985
4,522
64 WAYNE
1,745
943
2,688
65 WESTMORELAND
5,391
3,258
8,649
66 WYOMING
1,047
388
1,435
67 YORK
3,609
1,654
5,263
99 OUT OF STATE
3,338
1,234
4,572
44 MIFFLIN
47 MONTOUR
53 POTTER
54 SCHUYLKILL
55 SNYDER
56 SOMERSET
57 SULLIVAN
G:\ERCO\0201.02 ATV Study\Feasibility Study\Final Document\Final Draft Submission 3-2-05\PA ATV
Registrations 3_01_04.xls
APPENDIX D
EXISTING ATV TRAILS
PENNSYLVANIA
Existing ATV Trails
Acres of Property
Tower City
Pennsylvania
Jack Frost, Big Boulder
Miles of Trails
Available
Owner
Operator
Enforcement
Usage Fees
Maintenance
Maintenance Fees
*
Private
Tower City Riders Inc.
(Non-Profit)
$75/year (member)
$30/day (guest)
(Non-Profit)
130
Private
Paragon Park
(Corporation)
Paragon Park
(Corporation)
$35/machine + $125/Guide
$25/machine
Paragon Park
(Corporation)
Paragon Park
$35/day, $15/5hrs
$250-$350/Year
(Other packages available)
6 Courses with
varing degrees of Private
difficulty
Burnt Mills
7
Forestry Service Forestry Service
State Forest Officials
None
Forestry Service,
Voulenteers
*
Maple Run Tract
8
Forestry Service Forestry Service
None
Forestry Service,
Voulenteers
*
Marienville ATV/Bike
Trail
37
USDA
Forestry Service
U.S. Forest Officials
$35.00/Year/person
$10.00/Day/person
Matianville Trail Riders,
Three Rivers Competition
Riders
Trail Use Fee
Timberline ATV Trail
38
USDA
Forestry Service
Ranger
$35.00/Year/person
$10.00/Day/person
Forestry Service,
Voulenteers
Trail Use Fee
Rocky Gap ATV Trail
20.8
USDA
Forestry Service
Ranger
$35.00/Year/person
$10.00/Day/person
Forestry Service,
Voulenteers
Trail Use Fee
Willow Creek ATV Trail
10.8
USDA
Forestry Service
Ranger
$35.00/Year/person
$10.00/Day/person
Forestry Service,
Voulenteers
Trail Use Fee
$6.00/Individual
$10.00/Family
Forestry Service,
Voulenteers
Trail Use Fee,
Snow Shoe Trail Registration
Fees
Snow Shoe Rail Trail
* Information not available at this time
19
Existing ATV Trails
Hours of Operation
7 days/week 365/year
sundown
sunup to
Trail Amenities
Users must sign a waiver
releasing owner of liability
Camping
9am to 4pm (winter)
Snack Shack, Guided Users must sign a waiver
Tours, Rentals
10am to Dusk
Food, Restrooms, etc.
- Ski Lodge
Amenities
URL
Contact
John Grodensky
http://www.towercitytrailriders.org Phone: (717) 273-4522
Email: tctri.one@verizon.net
http://paragonap.com
http://www.jfbb.com
Phone: (570) 384-0550
Email: info@paragonap.com
Jack Frost Big Boulder
1-800-468-2442
infores@jfbb.com
Phone:
Email:
Friday before Memorial Day-Last
Full Week in September, Day
following last day of regular or
extended antlerless deer season to
April 1
*
*
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/fores Delaware State Forest
try/atv/atvindex.htm
(570) 895-4000
Phone:
Friday before Memorial Day-Last
Full Week in September,
*
*
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/fores Delaware State Forest
try/atv/atvindex.htm
(570) 895-4001
Phone:
Allegheny Nat'l Forest Supervisor
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/allegheny/ (814) 723-5150,
recreation/trails/atv.html
(814) 726-2710 TTY
Email: r9_allegheny_nf@fs.fed.us
Phone:
or
Phone:
Memorial Day-Last Sunday in
Camping
September December 20 to April 2
or (814) 726-2710 TTY
or (814) 726-2710 TTY
Phone:
Camping
Phone:
or (814) 726-2710 TTY
Camping
Camping
Liability
APPENDIX E
EXISTING ATV TRAILS
OTHER STATES
Existing ATV Trails
Virginia
Hatfields & McCoys ATV
Trail (400mi.)
New York
Acres of Property
Aldrich Pond / Streeter
Lake Area / ATV Trails
near Fine, NY
Miles of Trails
Available
Ohio
Enforcement
Private
/Constructed by
state agency
Hatfield-McCoy Regoinal
Ranger
*
Forestry Service
Ranger
Usage Fees
$25/Year (State Resident)
$100/Year (Out-of-State)
$15/Day, $35/3-7 Day
*
Forestry Service
ODNR - Departmant of
Forestry
None
Forestry Service
Forestry
None
Pike State Forest
Forestry Service
Forestry
None
Richlland Furnace State
Forest
Forestry Service
Forestry
None
Perry State Forest
1500
40 Total
Martineau Recreation
Trails
Minnesota
Operator
400
Maumee State Forest
Michigan
Owner
67 (33.5 each)
State Forest
Maintenance
*
Maintenance Fees
*
State
Division of Forestry /Registration
Employees/Voulenteer with
sticker fee /limited federal
Supervision
funding
State
Supervision
funding
State
Supervision
funding
State
Supervision
funding
*
*
None
*
*
*
*
None
*
*
Red Dot Trail
27.6
Soo Line North Atv Trail
112
State & National
Forest
*
*
None
*
*
SE Minnesota ATV Trail
12.7
Private/Pasture
*
*
None
*
*
State Forest
Michigan DNR
DNR Conservation
Officers
None
Non-profit Clubs and
Private Agencies
ORV Liscense fees and Trail
Improvement Fund Grant
Program
State Forest
Michigan DNR
DNR Conservation
Officers
None
Non-profit Clubs and
Private Agencies
ORV Liscense fees and Trail
Improvement Fund Grant
Program
Silver Lake State Park
450
3100
Bull Gap/Meadows
*
* Information not vailable at this time
Existing ATV Trails
Hours of Operation
Sunrise to sunset
Trail Amenities
Liability
Members must sign a waiver
(All Year)
URL
http://www.trailsheaven.com
Camping, Rentals
DEC Forrester John Gibbs
315-265-3099
Phone:
*
*
one-half hour before sunrise until onehalf hour after sunset
*
Division of Forestry
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/forestr DCNR
y/Forests/stateforests/maumee.h Email: jacob.hahn@dnr.state.oh.us
tm
*
DCNR
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/forestr
Email: jacob.hahn@dnr.state.oh.us
y/Forests/stateforests/perry.htm
*
*
May 1-Nov.1
*
*
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ohv/tr
Phone: 218-755-2265
ails/martineau.html
May 15 - November 30
*
*
Phone: 218-226-4608
ails/reddot.html
4/1 to 11/30 in Cass and Aitkin
Counties and on a year-round in
Carlton County
*
*
Phone: 218-384-9179 (Moose Lk-Lawler),
218-927-7364 (Lawler to Shovel Lake), 218ails/sooline_north.html
947-3338 (Shovel Lake-Cass Lake)
*
*
Phone: 507-689-2584
ails/se.html
Michigan DNR/USDA Forest
Service/Genesee County Parks
and Recreation Commission
http://www.michigandnr.com/park Silver Lake State Park
sandtrails/ParksandTrailsInfo.as Phone: 231-873-3083
p?id=493
4/1 to 10/31
4/1 to 5/15 and the day after Labor
Day to 10/31, 9am to 8 pm 5/16 to
Labor Day it is open 9am to 10 pm
4/1 to 10/31
4/1 to 5/15 and the day after Labor
Day to 10/31, 9am to 8 pm 5/16 to
Labor Day it is open 9am to 10 pm
Hatfield~McCoy Trails
Phone: 1-800-592-2217
Email: info@trailsheaven.com
*
May 15 to October 31
Camping
Camping
Michigan DNR/USDA Forest
Service/Genesee County Parks
and Recreation Commission
*
Contact
DCNR
y/Forests/stateforests/pike.htm
DCNR
y/Forests/stateforests/richlandfur
nace.htm
*
(evenings only)
*
APPENDIX F
LIABILITY MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN PENNSYLVANIA
Liability and Enforcement Issues
Current Practices in Pennsylvania
Groups
Type of Group
Purpose of Group
Land Resource
Liability Management
Enforcement
ATV Traction, Inc.
Club, Non-Profit
Social Club / ATV Riding, Limited
Land Resources
Use of a 7-mile Railbed, and Use of
Private Land by Permission
Granted to Club Members
General Liability Insurance by
Landowners and PA Recreational
Use Statute
Membership Polices Itself
Club, Non-Profit
Social Club / Off-Road Vehicle
Riding, Significant Land Resources
6,000 Acres (Leased)
Member / Users Sign a Waiver,
Club Carries General Commercial
Liability Insurance
Riders Wear Helmet Stickers.
Members Identify Trespassers By
Absence of Sticker. Trespassers
are Reported and Arrested
Business, For Profit
Provide Trailriding Use of
Significant Land Resource
15,000 Acres
Users sign a Waiver, Users Pay a
User Fee, Business Carries Liability
Insurance
Riders Wear Wristbands Users
Identify Trespassers by Absence of
Wristband. Trespassers are
Reported and Arrested
Rausch Creek Motorsports
Membership Available
Land Use Club / Off-road Vehicle
Racing and Trail Riding
Racetrack and 650 Acres of Trails
Entrance and Use are Overseen by
Officials
Wolfmann's Motocross, LLC
Requires Membership
Provide Off-road Racing Use of
Land Resource
Racetrack
Business Carries Liability
Insurance (Assumed), Users Pay a
Membership Fee, Users Pay an
Additional User Fee, Users Sign a
Waiver
Insurance (Assumed), Users Pay a
Membership Fee, Users Pay User
Fee
Plumcreek Valley MC Park
Provide Off-road Racing Use of
Land Resource
Racetrack
Insurance (Assumed), Users Pay
User Fee
Officials
Cambria County Conservation and
Para-government Authority
Land Reclamation for Recreational
Use
6,000 Acres (Grant received for
Purchase)
Facility in Planning
Facility in Planning
G:\ERCO\0201.02 ATV Study\Feasibility Study\6. Legal-Liability Issues\Liability Research Actual.xls
Officials
APPENDIX G
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
APPENDIX H
PERTINENT
CORRESPONDENCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Earth Conservancy [mailto:earthcon@intergrafix.net]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:38 AM
To: Scott Cope; Barber, Steve
Subject: Fw: Mocanaqua Loop Trail
Little interesting tidbit. JD
Jacqueline Dickman
Dir. of Public Affairs & Development
Earth Conservancy
101 S. Main St.
Ashley, PA 18706
Ph: 570-823-3445
Fx: 570-823-8270
www.earthconservancy.org
----- Original Message ----From: MLipka2137@aol.com
To: earthcon@intergrafix.net
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 5:54 AM
Subject: Mocanaqua Loop Trail
I hiked the brown loop section of the trail this past Saturday. The trail
is good, it is nice to see this type of use made of the coal lands. You do need
to in-force the no motorized vehicle rule the ATVs are causing damage and
erosion to the trail and I don't think many foot hikers are caring in the six
packs of beer that the cans reman on the trail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Jacqueline Dickman [mailto:jacqueline.dickman@earthconservancy.org]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 8:59 AM
To: Scott Cope; Barber, Steve
Subject: Fw: ATV TRAILS
See below. JD
Jacqueline Dickman
Earth Conservancy
101 S. Main St.
Ashley, PA 18706
Ph: 570-823-3445
Fx: 570-823-8270
----- Original Message ----From: GARYI00@aol.com
To: jacqueline.dickman@earthconservancy.org
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:23 PM
Subject: ATV TRAILS
PLEASE OPEN TRAILS FOR ATV RIDNG ..THANKS
GARY MANGIAPIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jacqueline Dickman [mailto:jacqueline.dickman@earthconservancy.org]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 2:40 PM
To: Barber, Steve; Scott Cope
Subject: Fw: ATV trails in NE Pa.
Jacqueline Dickman
Earth Conservancy
101 S. Main St.
Ashley, PA 18706
Ph: 570-823-3445
Fx: 570-823-8270
----- Original Message ----From: Jacqueline Dickman
To: Jim Skamarakus
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: ATV trails in NE Pa.
Hi Jim.
Thanks for your input about potential trail locations. The areas you mention
are areas that we're looking at for potential linear trails that could travel
through that area and possibly extend north and east as well. The steering
committee we're working with represents a broad base of riders from this area
and who probably share your knowledge of potential riding areas in Wyoming
Valley as well as people from the Forest Service, Game Commission, and DCNR.
I'll pass along your info to the committee. If you think of other areas in this
vicinity, don't hesitate to pass along the info.
Thanks for your time.
Jackie
Jacqueline Dickman
Earth Conservancy
101 S. Main St.
Ashley, PA 18706
Ph: 570-823-3445
Fx: 570-823-8270
----- Original Message ----From: Jim Skamarakus
To: jacqueline.dickman@earthconservancy.org
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: ATV trails in NE Pa.
Jacqueline,
I have been hiking the Mocanocqua Loop Trails a few
times a week since they opened last year. I enjoy the trails very much & the
look out areas overlooking the river & the valley are fantastic. I was born &
raised in Wanamie & have hunted & hiked this area all of my 63 years of
existance. I have also spent many years riding an ATV in this area. When the
Earth Conservancy took over the area & let the Game Commission use the area I
could no longer ride in this area.
This area would make a great area for ATV trails
because of its durability. The area is mostly a strip & underground mining area
& there are many established roads & trails in the area. Most of the land is
rock ledges & is just about impossible to harm with ATV traffic. I have used an
ATV in this area for almost 30 yrs before it was closed to ATVs. The area is
basically the same as it was 30 yrs ago. Many ATVs have used that area in that
time & there is no damage to the environment. The ATVs are still using the area
& to me, they help keep the trails free of fallen trees & brush.
From what I read on the internet you are looking for
areas that are suitable for ATV trails in the Wyoming Valey area. I hope you
would give this area some consideration as it is a very durable area. Thank you
for hearing me.
Jim skamarakus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The Berks County Real Estate Book [mailto:BerkTREB@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 10:19 AM
To: Barber, Steve
Subject: ATV Trail System Thank you
Mr. Barber
Just wanted to pass along a thank you for all the work you have done for the new
ATV trail system in PA. My family and I will contiune to support you.
Thanks again,
Joshua L. Detweiler
President
Jericho Enterprises, LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Anthony Bonafide [mailto:badblue442@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:52 PM
To: Barber, Steve
Subject: NE Pa atv trail system
To whom it may concern,
Just wanted to drop a little note to thank whoever is responsible for supporting
the ATV enthusiasts in Pa, NY and NJ. We have been waiting for someone to step
up to the plate and take charge and it looks like someone finally has. We cant
thank you enough for the proposed trail system in the north east Pa area.
Thank You
Tony
-----Original Message----From: Jason Gray [mailto:jgray@knoll.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:38 AM
To: Barber, Steve; jacqueline.dickman@earthconservancy.org
Subject: NEPA ATV trails
Hello,
I have recently learned that you have been helping and hopefully
continuing to help the ATV trails in NEPA. I would like to personally thank you
for your time and energy spent on this worthy project. As I am sure you already
know that this project is a big battle that would benefit a huge number of
people. We all now the success of Tower City, Paragon, and Hatfield-McCoy in
WV. ATVing is a huge opportunity for family bonding and time in the great
outdoors.
Once again thanks for your time and we are all here to support the efforts.
Jason Gray
------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Scott [mailto:serflip@alltel.net]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:20 PM
To: Barber, Steve
Subject: atv trails
Thank you for your help in getting some trails around the northeast
for alot of us to enjoy,you are the main people we can count on,thanks again
-----Original Message----From: Kita, Travis [mailto:Travis.Kita@astrazeneca.com]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:52 AM
To: 'jacqueline.dickman@earthconservancy.org'
Cc: Barber, Steve; Chris Work Email (E-mail)
Subject: ATV Trail System in Hanover/Blakeslee PA
Dear Sir/Mamm:
As a fellow ATV enthusiast I would like to express my support for an
ATV trail system in the poconos of PA. I've been riding for about 5 years
now and my friends and I greatly appreciate the sport however they aren't
too many "legal" places to ride in PA or the surrounding states like DE and
NJ. We live in the King of Prussia area and the police have banned all ATV
and dirt biking in the township and all of the woods and basins have been
turned into leaf dumping areas. We do go to Tower City once a year however
it's a real far hike to go riding for the day. I know that Jack Frost
mountain has a small ATV/dirt bike track but it is limited. Our parents had
a place at Jack Frost mountain and we've hiked and gone fishing up there and
there is a lot of land along the river and the power lines that would be
great for an ATVing trail system. If our support is needed to assist you
and your organization to have this trail system passed by the state then
please let us know what we can do to help.
Ride safe
Sincerely,
Travis Kita
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: AJBEPS@aol.com [mailto:AJBEPS@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:12 PM
To: Barber, Steve
Subject: Thank You
Mr. Steve Barber,
I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you for taking the time to
allowing for the future an ATV trail system in northeast, PA.
I am 33yrs, I have been riding for nearly 2 years and I love the to ATV. I am
also someone who believes in being responsible for the land I ride on and
taking care of it. If there is every an opportunity for myself and my club to
help in volunteering in keeping the land clean and preserving it please don't
hesitate and drop me an email.
Once again many thanks for your efforts and happy holidays and a safe and
wonderful New Year.
Sincerely,
Andrew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----From: Greg Hamill
To: Jacqueline Dickman
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: Thanks for your efforts
Greg A. Hamill
President PMATVC
Member Pa park and recreation society
Member Blue Ribbon Coalition
Member Teamsters Local 326
Administrative Director POHVA
Just wanted to say thank you for all of your efforts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Samuel Schellenger [mailto:quadnut1@comcast.net]
To: Barber, Steve
Subject: ATV trails
ATV trails in Luzerne should be preserved and improved without causing land
degradation. I support ATV riding but not illegal dumping or unregulated mining
and logging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ATVMEL22@aol.com [mailto:ATVMEL22@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:26 AM
To: Barber, Steve
Subject: trails
I would like to take this time to thank you for all your hard work in making
places to ride. once again THANK YOUATVMEL22@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------From: robv [mailto:robv@adelphia.net]
To: Barber, Steve
Subject:
I'm a 35 yr old atv rider and just wonted to say thanks
-----Original Message----From: todd stitt [mailto:tbslrs@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:42 PM
To: Barber, Steve
Subject: trail system in Northeast Pa.
Mr. Barber,
I would like to take a moment to thank you for all your valuable time and the
great effort you have put forth towards the building of an atv trail in northest
Pa. This is such a much needed opportunity that I myself and many others would
like to see realized. Keep up the good work and Good Luck in all your efforts!
Thanks Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Todd Stitt
From: Brian Maffia Luxury Marketing [mailto:brianmaffia@rcn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:24 PM
To: Barber, Steve
Subject: ATV Trails
I would just like to say a quick thank you for all the work you have put forth
in trying to expand Northern Pa's Trail systems. I ride with my oldest daughter
and we rely on these trails not for only fun, but I take the time to teach her
about nature and how to protect it and preserve it for the future. I once again
would like to thank you for youre time and efforts. Feel free to contact me if
help was ever needed to protect the future of ATV trails so I could ride with my
daughters and hopefully grandaughters.
Brian Maffia
brianmaffia@rcn.com
APPENDIX I
MAPS